|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Recommend me a bible
|
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044
|
Posted
Edit note: In my post above,
"my Greek/English Interlinear bible with accompanying NIV text"
should read:
"my Greek/English Interlinear NT with accompanying NIV text"
Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
Below is what I told someone else who recently asked the same question. It's awfully long, so run off to get a snack or something if you'd rather skip it. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:
The very best Bible translation is the one you will take joy in and read often, and understand easily, without having to look things up too often, without having to wait on the Holy Spirit to zap you with the gift of reading in tongues.
Anything besides you standing there 2,000 years ago, 5 feet away from Jesus of Nazareth, listening to the Aramaic coming out of His mouth, is a translation done by, you can only hope, a group of scholarly but also common-sense people, with loyalties primarily to the truth of what they are translating.
You have two main extremes of translation -- a direct word-for-word, and a "dynamic equivalent". These things can each be useful. A direct word-for-word Greek-to-English translation looks like someone put the Bible in a food processor. The only way to understand that as an English reader is to digest it in chunks. A dynamically-equivalent phrase can make all the difference in the world, improving the understanding of the reader, but if it's not carefully done it's little better than a paraphrase.
For example, in my region we boil and eat crawfish (crayfish crawdads mudbugs, you know). When we have a visitor from Up North we explain to him, "Don't eat the dead ones".
What's that supposed to mean? They've been boiled, right? They're all dead.
A "direct word-for-word" translation won't mean much to an outsider. But, even though the words actually stated literally were "Don't eat the dead ones", a dynamic equivalent sort of translation is needed for full meaning to the outsider. *(Translation below)*
The best we can do is pick out a handful of passages that have deep meaning for us, passages that make us stop and think, passages that make us cry or laugh -- and read those passages in as many translations as you can get your hands on. The one or two translations that make the passage most clear and useful to you -- those are the ones that should be your main daily-use Bibles.
... here (is a Bible search tool)... For broad segments of Scripture and for a long list of Bible translations, I like Studylight. There are about 45 Bible translations and paraphrases available to you in the search bar there.
For example:
Here's Luke 22:36, in the context, in the KJV, with Strong's numbers, so it's really easy to look things up in the Strong's Concordance.
Here is the same verse, Luke 22:36, in context, in The Message. That's not really a translation -- it's a paraphrase, authored by one man.
Don't ever make a paraphrase, or even a translation done under the power of a single man, your only Bible. It is good to trust in the "crabs in a basket" principle. (Yes, another aquatic example. Might as well. I am here Below the Bible Belt in Southeast Louisiana...)
That is, when you have a bushel of live crabs ready to dump into boiling water -- they are of course crawling about in there, trying to get out, every crab for himself. If one should get lucky and begin to escape, the others usually grab him and pull him back down (in their own escape attempts, but to us it looks like on purpose).
Thus the crabs-in-a-basket factor in translations. Some of the best will have input from a group of translators from different backgrounds. The moment one translator puts his own denominational twist on a passage, the others yank him back...
... a... paraphrase (is no good)... when it comes time for deep study. But they are very good for your "reading Bible". That is, when you want to read a few chapters before bedtime, or when you want to read the Bible straight like any really good book, or when you want to read it aloud in large sections for others to hear it, not worrying about chapters and verses and deep word studies -- a good paraphrase cannot be beaten, at a time like that.
.
.
.
.
.
.
*{Translation: "When they are boiled live, their tails curl springily up. Don't eat those few limp, straight-tailed ones. Those died before they were boiled. You will at best get some lower-quality meat, at worst catch a horrible intestinal revolt and die, or wish your could."
In other words: Don't eat the dead ones.}
--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
To try desperately to bring this post back on topic, I would reckon that a bible version for in-depth study, using commentaries and maybe venturing into the Hebrew and Greek texts, would best be an essentially literal version...
I have great respect for the NET bible, as the footnotes and translation notes are awe-inspiring, but the same gender-neutralising tinkering as the NRSV disqualifies it from the list.
Angus, there is a lot of thoughtful insight in your post. I would like to just take issue with the quoted part above.
ISTM that one of the exciting things about the NET Bible is that it presents a powerful argument against formal equivalence as an ideal of translation. The reality is that the NET Bible is quite substantially over to the dynamic equivalence end of the spectrum in its translation. But the point they seem to be making is that the formal equivalence/dynamic equivalence continuum is just not very useful in understanding scripture.
By my lights, the NET Bible is dedicated to making the nuances of meaning in scripture as plain as possible in English. They do it by discussing in detail the nuances of the original language. The translation itself is just the starting point for understanding the text. Beyond that, there are word plays, variations on root meanings of words as the pericope is developed, etc. that are essential to understanding the original text -- and are virtualy untranslatable. The nuances can be explained, but not adequately captured in a translation. Hence, the NET Bible is the translation-plus-notes that unpack the scriptures.
That is the point of the thousands of translation notes -- to unveil the text as it was intended. By abandoning the ideal of a literal rendering and embracing the notion of documenting the literal sense of the text, they have shown a very sensible way forward in presenting the richness of scripture in a translated tongue. Formal equivalence simply can't provide any better understanding of the original text than its more dynamic equivalent alternatives.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
That all sounds wonderful, Tom, but what's their slant? Once you start interpreting the Bible, you're doing it from a point of view: Catholic, Orthodox, Pentecostal, Lutheran, whatever. Unless they try to present all of these together?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That all sounds wonderful, Tom, but what's their slant? Once you start interpreting the Bible, you're doing it from a point of view: Catholic, Orthodox, Pentecostal, Lutheran, whatever. Unless they try to present all of these together?
The translation team is from the Dallas Theological Seminary, which is really right-wing Protestant. But I have not been oppressed by their theological slant. The notes come in three flavors: sn, tn, and tc. "Sn" are "study notes," and are theological slants. They will argue that a given passage is about penal substitution, for example. They are the obviously slanted notes, and I usually just skip over them. "Tn" are translation notes, and they discuss such things as nuances of meaning of key words in the original language. "Tc" are notes about textual criticism -- what different textual sources say and why they chose to use the source they did.
All-in-all, the approach makes for quite a pleasing unlocking of the scriptures, with the main points of ideological input clearly marked as such. I would be delighted if this ends up being the prototype for a whole new approach to translation. It is a very useful mode of presentation. However, because the notes are almost entirely devoted to textual issues, you do still need a traditional study Bible or commentary to provide the historical context, etc., for the scriptures.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044
|
Posted
In response to Janine’s quoted text:
quote:
The very best Bible translation is the one you will take joy in and read often, and understand easily, without having to look things up too often, ...
There is certainly a great demand for ‘easy to understand’ versions of the Bible, which is why the dynamic equivalence versions proliferate. However, if the source text of the translation wasn’t easy to understand, even by someone expert in the source language, and to understand it required considerable background knowledge and study, then to render it as an easy-to-understand translation is IMO to misrepresent the source text. To render an obscure source text simple requires the insertion of explanation and commentarial interpolations, which may then be assumed to be of equal status to the source text, or it may require the resolution of an ambiguity by the translation team imposing their own theological view.
The problem with doing this in translations of the Bible is that the many people who believe it to be the inspired Word of God may infer things from the editorial insertions of a translator that may have no basis in the source text – there is after all, no indication in the translation of which words have been inserted. (Unlike the KJV where the added words were italicised.) If these inferences are then applied with the full force and authority of ‘The Word of God’ to establish doctrine and practice, people can be mis-led and abused. This is a consequence that makes me very suspicious of ‘easy-to-understand’ translations.
And maybe God didn’t intend His word to be easy to understand. Maybe He didn’t intend to spoon-feed people, but expected them to wrestle with and chew over what He wanted to communicate. Maybe that’s why He gave teachers to the church (1Cor.12:28), and didn’t expect His people to be isolated individual readers, but be part of a body (most of 1Cor.12).
quote:
You have two main extremes of translation -- a direct word-for-word, and a "dynamic equivalent". These things can each be useful. A direct word-for-word Greek-to-English translation looks like someone put the Bible in a food processor.
One of the common fallacies used to disparage ‘essentially literal’ translations is that they are ‘word for word’ and look ‘like someone put the Bible in a food processor’. IIRC (I can’t find my copy ATM) Fee and Stuart in their book How to read the Bible for all it’s worth also promote this attitude. (They are enthusiasts for dynamic equivalence and don’t even mention the ESV in their latest edition.) Leland Ryken addresses this fallacy in his book (referred in my previous post but one).
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Angus, there is a lot of thoughtful insight in your post. I would like to just take issue with the quoted part above. ...
Tom, thanks for the compliment. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) I’ve read your response about the NET bible, and I do take on board the points that you’ve made. I’ll integrate them into my understanding of bible translations. Prov 27:17
Angus
Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
For those still interested, in October the HCSB study bible will be published. I quite like the translation from what I've read so far (not that much). But the study bible looks rather brilliant, here is a video explaining its features, and here is a 16 page PDF excerpt (yes, the study bible will be in full color throughout).
A lot less flash, but more Catholic (the HCSB is mostly from the Baptist tradition, I understand), is the Ignatius Study Bible. The translation is the RSV (2nd Catholic Edition), and notes are by Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch. The entire New Testament is now available as one book, previously each bible book had to be bought separately. At the link above you can also download 4 sample PDF pages. The same authors are apparently now working through the OT book by book again, here is Genesis. Eventually I guess Ignatius will publish a complete study bible based on this material. Of course, the Navarre Bible is already available as complete Catholic study bible (RSC 1st CE, plus New Latin Vulgate). Perhaps it is of interest again that the New Testament is available as one book. At the link you can also find 8 PDF pages as sample. Again, I expect that eventually they will do the whole bible (and they have the material to do it already, I assume commercial questions are the problem).
All in all, the Protestant study bibles are really in a different league currently as far as the presentation goes. I would love it if the major "conservative" ones like ESV or perhaps now HCSB would spawn a Catholic version with the same production quality but adapted content (translation, notes, and of course the "extra" books would need to be done).
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Via Media
Shipmate
# 16087
|
Posted
I use three, all of them great and not-so-great for different reasons...
The New Oxford Annotated Bible (2nd edition with the RSV & 3rd edition with the NRSV, both including the Apocrypha). Very scholarly; the academic standard, it seems. Historical-critical to the max; definitely tips the boat toward the liberal side. A 4th edition, again with the NRSV, has recently been released.
The MacArthur Study Bible (NKJV). A 180 from the NOAB (above). Very conservative, perhaps with a fundamentalist flavour; Calvinistic, Baptistic, moderately Dispensationalist. This is a one man job, so you kinda really have to like ol' Johnny Mac to dig this.
The ESV Study Bible. Kind of represents a mean between the 'extremes' of the NOAB and the MSB (above). A conservative, evangelical, moderately Reformed scholarly study Bible, headed by the British-Canadian Anglican theologian J.I. Packer. The load of essays at the back, which could be packaged and sold as a book unto itself (and, knowing Crossway Books, probably will be) are a real draw.
--------------------
In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. Most of the time, eh?
Posts: 65 | From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hilda of Whitby
Shipmate
# 7341
|
Posted
Several years ago when I was looking for a Bible for myself, I asked a colleague's husband, who is the director of a library at an RC theological seminary, for his recommendation. What I wanted was a Bible that had scholarly apparatus with serious chops, more liberal than conservative, but without gender-neutral language (I'm quite liberal theologically but I have not found a gender-neutral Bible whose language scanned well for me). Absolutely no paraphrases or language aimed at elementary school children.
He suggested the New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha, RSV, 2nd edition. It is just what I wanted. The language is beautiful, the scholarly apparatus is really interesting and the Bible itself is lovely--very nice leather, gilt-edged pages. No illustrations except maps, which is fine as far as I'm concerned. I have the Complete Bible Handbook which has color illustrations galore. I consult this frequently when I am reading my Bible.
It has been really interesting reading this thread and checking out the other Bibles that have been mentioned. There are so many different translations out there; I think pretty much anyone could find one that is the right 'fit'.
--------------------
"Born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world is mad."
Posts: 412 | From: Nickel City | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
May I ask a sub-question? (Hosts please tell me to start a new thread if you think I should.)
Can anyone recommend a good Bible for my newly-acquired Amazon Kindle? I've a fairly strong preference for one with the Deuterocanon/Apocrypha, and as far as I can see by searching the amazon website so far, that narrows it down to either the Douay-Rheims or the RSV.
(Note: I don't think UK Kindle users can buy books from amazon.com - only from amazon.co.uk. But I could be wrong about that - I'm very new to it all.)
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nenuphar
Shipmate
# 16057
|
Posted
Presumably you have looked through the bibles on Amazon.uk? I have bought the Ignatius study bible (RSV) which is a good study bible (if you don't mind catholic notes!) but unfortunately so far it is only the NT. I believe the authors will publish the books of the OT as they annotate them, and then the entire bible, but obviously this is a long term project. There is also an NRSV as well as the RSV or the D-R, or if there is another translation you prefer, you can buy the deuterocanoicals alone for your Kindle. I haven't tried to buy from Amazon.com since transferring my account to the uk store, but I should think it's worth a try if the version you prefer is only available there. Hope this is of some help to you.
Posts: 161 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Thanks, Nenuphar. In the end I've gone for this, the Ignatius Bible, which doesn't claim to be a "study" Bible but does contain extensive doctrinal and exegetical notes.
I wanted a Bible for my Kindle mainly because I'm at a Certain Age, where small print (espceially on thin paper, where you can see the print on the other side too) tires my eyes after a while. The Kindle allows you to change print size to suit yourself. But in only a couple of days since I bought this, I've also found the notes system very useful - there's nothing distracting on the "page", but a click takes you to the note on a separate "page" - and if I want to use it for my daily prayer readings, it takes only a minute to set up the "bookmarks" and then it's easier to use than a paper Bible. It's also a lot lighter!
(The only thing I've found that doesn't work well on it is the text-to-voice function, where the Kindle reads aloud to you. The problem is, the voice also reads the verse and chapter numbers, making it virtually unintelligible!)
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nenuphar
Shipmate
# 16057
|
Posted
I hadn't tried the text-to-voice function until I read your post, then I tried the beginning of Matthew. I preferred the male voice to the female one, but I see the reading of the verse numbers etc. would be a bit disconcerting if you didn't know it was going to happen. "He" read the asterisks and the letters for footnotes too, but I must say that for a computer, I thought "he" managed the names quite well.
Posts: 161 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
I have just this very now returned from an excellent talk by Fr. Nicholas King, who has recently produced a translation of the NT - has anyone come across it or used it?
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
crynwrcymraeg
Shipmate
# 13018
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I have just this very now returned from an excellent talk by Fr. Nicholas King, who has recently produced a translation of the NT - has anyone come across it or used it?
I had not heard of this. Do you know where it is available I wonder , please ?
Thanks.
--------------------
I ignored the admins and now I'm Erin's bitch.
Posts: 522 | From: Ty'n Coed | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
I have got a copy, a shipmate recommended it, can't remember who.
It is a personal (as opposed to a committee translation) and if I recall correctly why I bought it, it is the one translation that takes the authors writing style into consideration in translating rather than using a translation determined style of language. I maybe wrong. I have not had the chance to use it very much since I got it as I have been busy elsewhere.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
crynwrcymraeg
Shipmate
# 13018
|
Posted
Thanks very much JJ.
Must try and see if i can Goodle it. Not quite what it is called though.
--------------------
I ignored the admins and now I'm Erin's bitch.
Posts: 522 | From: Ty'n Coed | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
It is called "The New Testament: Freshly translated by Nicholas King" ISBN 1-84417-324-0 and the publisher is Kevin Mayhew.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
crynwrcymraeg
Shipmate
# 13018
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
It is called "The New Testament: Freshly translated by Nicholas King" ISBN 1-84417-324-0 and the publisher is Kevin Mayhew.
Jengie
Thanks very much -appreciated.
--------------------
I ignored the admins and now I'm Erin's bitch.
Posts: 522 | From: Ty'n Coed | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That all sounds wonderful, Tom, but what's their slant? Once you start interpreting the Bible, you're doing it from a point of view: Catholic, Orthodox, Pentecostal, Lutheran, whatever. Unless they try to present all of these together?
What's the most widely read version amongst Orthodox? I'm curious.....
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
Looking at my shelves I see, with the Authorised Version (KJV), the New English Bible (the New testament of 1961 and the complete Bible of 1970. I also have the Moffatt and Phillips translations of the New Testament,
(I have also a parallel text presentation of the Synoptic Gospels, and the various readings and the Psalms in the Book of Common Prayer).
I notice that, from the thread, that apart from the Authorised Version none of these are specifically recommended (and I don't know enough to add them to the lists).
I'm a resolute collector of scriptures, in the very widest sense, (the Koran, the Book of Mormon, Buddhist texts, the Tao Te Ching, the Analects of Confucius, the Bhagavad Gita, Quaker Faith and Practice, the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius) - that's a sense so wide as to encompass so much that it's barely a defineable class of books.
It's certainly becoming apparent that there are well loved and valuable translations of the Bible that I would do well to add to my shelves (and read), so I'll keep reading the thread.
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Well the request was originally for a good study bible.
The KJV is the KJV which was translated 450 years ago and while an absolute marvel for its time, therefore pays no attention to modern biblical scholarship.
Moffat and Philips are personal translations and for study purposes it is usual to prefer a committee with several Bible scholars arguing for a standard text. Same reason that I would not use The Message as a study bible.
The New English Bible is an interesting historical artefact. The literalness of the English used makes the text very clunky and the Old Testament version is idiosyncratic because of the senior translators expertise in middle eastern languages (more so than you average OT scholar and yes I got this info from an OT scholar). There is an update to it called the Revised English Bible, which was unfortunate in its timing, coming out just before the New Revised Standard Version, but is held to be a decent translation.
All the bibles on your shelf were translated prior to inclusive language debate as well so expect it to use 'men' in ways that to a modern reader appear quite sexist.
Jengie
[ 12. November 2011, 20:24: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
bump
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Ok - I'll be the first person asking for Bible version advice for a while, so here's hoping people read this.
I want an annotated study Bible.
I'm a very liberal, downright heretical, several-times excommunicated Roman Catholic. That said, I want to read a Bible that uses formal equivalence and is produced by academic scholars and recognized as a Bible used in academic scholarship whenever an English translation would be used. I would also like a Bible that, while retaining formal equivalence, is still somewhat pleasant to read (ie, the people translating had some sense of how to write well in English, even if they are constrained by formal equivalence).
I don't necessarily want a conservative Bible or a liberal Bible - I want one based on the best and most recent scholarly understanding of what the original text means in English in a formal equivalence way.
That would suggest the Oxford NRSV with Apocrypha with annotations or the Oxford RSV with Apocrypha with annotations. I am not sure which is better based on my criteria. I know about the controversies with gender neutral language in the NRSV and other issues where politics are said to have trumped accuracy. As for the RSV, I think it is odd to use "Thou" only for God, but more importantly, I am concerned that enough decades have passed since its production that it may ahve been superceded by other Bibles in terms of accuracy.
With both of these Bibles, there is the problem for me that they do not have the books in the Catholic order and do not include some of the chapters and verses that are unique to Catholic versions.
I don't know if there is an Oxford NRSV-CE with annotations or Oxford RSV-CE with annotations.
For this reason, I might want to buy another Bible, this one a Catholic edition. What is a solidly scholarly (ie, one that American (that is where I live) college professors would use when providing an English quote from scripture) Catholic Bible translation? What is the most excellent study Bible of this translation?
I have heard of the Ignatius Study Bible (RSV-CE), but I am not sure about the quality of its annotations compared with the Oxford editions above.
There is also the New Jerusalem Bible - but I don't know if I can stand the vocalization of the Tetragrammaton with vowels.
There is also the NAB-RE, the most recent official Catholic Bible for the US. Is there only one set of notes for this or are there study versions with expanded annotations? How does it compare to the other versions. This is closest to what I hear at Mass every Sunday but I do notice some annoying dynamic equivalence moments (although some of them were apparently removed from the Old Testament for the Revised Edition).
Almost all of my Bible reading so far has been from the New American Bible (not the revised edition). The language seems a bit clunky even with the dynamic equivalence that is mixed in with the formal equivalence. It can be hard to read at times, especially in the drier parts of the Old Testament. Maybe this is an issue I would have to deal with in any Bible version.
My observation has been that the RSV and NRSV seem to be more aesthetically pleasing to read than the NAB. I don't have much experience with other translations to know if they are more pleasant to read or not.
So - for the best scholarly study Bible for me regardless of whether it is Catholic or not: should it be Oxford NRSV, Oxford RSV, or something else?
As for the best scholarly Catholic study Bible for me: should it be Ignatius Study Bible (RSV-CE), the NAB-RE, the NJB, or something else? What specific study Bible version should it be?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Has the New Jerusalem come out as a study Bible? Seriously I have the old Jerusalem Bible in the study edition (it was my first study Bible, ever). I have long wondered about updating it for NJB but never seen a study bible.
An alternative is REB Study Bible. This is a UK scholarly committee translation and comes down the NEB route but the language is deliberately easier to read aloud than the NEB.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
(ie, one that American (that is where I live) college professors would use when providing an English quote from scripture) Catholic Bible translation?
In my experience, in my NT classes it was either NRSV or RSV. In OT classes, it was generally NAB, or sometimes JPS. In preaching, it was NAB.
The Catholic Study Bible that Don Senior and John Collins edited really is very good.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
(ie, one that American (that is where I live) college professors would use when providing an English quote from scripture) Catholic Bible translation?
In my experience, in my NT classes it was either NRSV or RSV. In OT classes, it was generally NAB, or sometimes JPS. In preaching, it was NAB.
The Catholic Study Bible that Don Senior and John Collins edited really is very good.
What are your thoughts on NAB-RE vs. NJB and RSV-CE and NRSV-CE? If you are more familiar with the non-Catholic RSV and NRSV, you can comment on those.
My main priority is to have a study Bible, but I also wonder what Bible should be my everyday reading Bible as well. I think it will be one of these versions but not sure which one.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
It's worth mentioning that while the NRSV does insert gender neutral language it always adds a footnote where this has been done to indicate what the the literal translation would be.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
NABRE is probably the most up-to-date in terms of integrating new manuscript evidence. I think that overall the NRSV is an improvement over the RSV. Also, from briefly skimming the Ignatius notes, I couldn't recommend them. (Note all the hedges on that statement). Jerusalem is probably the most mellifluous translation out there, but it doesn't meet your standards for formal equivalence. Both NABRE and NRSV would be close enough. You could get them both and switch between them. All translators are traitors (a saying that sounds much better in its original Italian), but between those two, you'll get a pretty good sense of the text.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Happy Pebble
Shipmate
# 2731
|
Posted
I know the New English Bible is quite out of date at this point, but I can't help feeling a study Bible using that translation would be of value. (The successor REB doesn't do much for me.)
Posts: 62 | From: Kingdom of Deseret | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
NABRE is probably the most up-to-date in terms of integrating new manuscript evidence. I think that overall the NRSV is an improvement over the RSV. Also, from briefly skimming the Ignatius notes, I couldn't recommend them. (Note all the hedges on that statement). Jerusalem is probably the most mellifluous translation out there, but it doesn't meet your standards for formal equivalence. Both NABRE and NRSV would be close enough. You could get them both and switch between them. All translators are traitors (a saying that sounds much better in its original Italian), but between those two, you'll get a pretty good sense of the text.
I think I might wind up with both the NRSV-CE and the NABRE. I don't know why, at least for the New Testament (since I haven't read the revised Old Testament in the NABRE), I tend to find the language in the NRSV to be a little nicer to read than the language in the NAB (or at least the language in the US RC Lectionary, which isn't exactly the same as that in the NAB). Both seem a little clunky at times, but that could a good thing because it shows their faithfulness to formal equivalence. Maybe that means the NRSV is less accurate? I have heard people complain that the NAB is kind of a compromise between formal and dynamic equivalence, and I have also used criticism that the NAB uses words that might more accurately portray the meaning of a word in Scripture than whatever the traditional KJV word was, but that seem really anachronistic in context. An example in the US RC Lectionary would be calling Barabbas "a revolutionary."
It is interesting that the US Catholics developed a translation that is closer to the original text and takes less poetic liberties than the British/global-English speaking Catholics (I am not sure which translation Canada uses). Why do you suppose that is?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
If you want a "literal", formal-equivalence translation in the main stream of English versions, the old RV is a much better bet than RSV. But it reads like a rather clunky updating of AV (because that is what it is)
NRSV remains the version of choice for most academic purposes within that tradition.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I have heard people complain that the NAB is kind of a compromise between formal and dynamic equivalence,
Pretty much every translation is (except a few). If you want pure formal equivalence, get an interlinear. The translation instructions for the last Greek class I took were "translate into mellifluous English, preserving as much of the structure of the Greek as you can." I think this is actually a pretty good translation philosophy.
It's also worth noting that while preserving the structure of the Greek normally produces decent English, preserving the structure of Hebrew (especially Hebrew poetry) would result in something almost unintelligible. Translations of Hebrew texts use a lot more dynamic equivalence because the forms just don't match up well at all.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
