CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group  

Go Back   CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group > Catholic Continuing Education > Teaching Series - Bible Study
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 26th May 2008, 02:01 AM
St. Thomas More St. Thomas More is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New York State
Posts: 374
Default Bibles

NAB
Douay-Rheim, Challoner version.

I've noticed that the books are grouped differently, and in a different order, in these two Bibles. Is there any reason for that?
__________________
St. Thomas More
--"The King's Good Servant, but God's First"
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11th June 2008, 12:12 AM
tobinatorstark
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I use the Douay-Rheims (Challoner revision). I mainly use that one. I occasionally use the New American Bible but don't find it as good as the Douay-Rheims. I own quite a few translations, both Catholic and Protestant. I own the Douay-Rheims, Jerusalem NT, New American Bible, King James Version, Thompson Chain Reference (King James), NIV NT. I hope to get the Latin Vulgate and the Protestant Geneva Bible
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11th June 2008, 03:05 AM
RJP2006 RJP2006 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 261
Default

NAB mostly.

Have use DR and NJ for Scripture study. A "recovery principles" bible occassionally for prayer/reflection also.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11th June 2008, 12:35 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,765
Default

In this discussion group, members may use any Catholic version of the Bible for quotes and discussion. Members may even quote from a Protestant version occasionally. I encourage all members to buy and use a Catholic version of the Bible. (My version is available online; members are not required to use my version.)

Recommended versions:

1. Challoner version of the Douay (e.g. Baronius Press edition)
2. Revised Standard Version Catholic edition (first or second edition; e.g. Ignatius Bible)
3. New American Bible (1970 edition or current edition)
4. Jerusalem Bible (Reader's Edition)
5. New Jerusalem Bible (Saints' Devotional Edition)
6. original and true Douay Rheims Bible (Dr. Peters' edition) - for study as it has excellent notes
7. CPDV
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12th June 2008, 11:25 PM
Angela Angela is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 75
Send a message via MSN to Angela Send a message via Yahoo to Angela
Default

Hello everyone - my name is Angela. I'm a newbie here.

Reading this thread on Bibles, which version do you all think is the best in regards to being closest to the oldest manuscripts we have?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12th June 2008, 11:55 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,765
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angela View Post
Hello everyone - my name is Angela. I'm a newbie here.

Reading this thread on Bibles, which version do you all think is the best in regards to being closest to the oldest manuscripts we have?

Simple question, complicated subject.

Oldest is not best.

The oldest nearly complete version of Isaiah was found at Qumran. But it was used by the Essenes, a sect of Jews who lived apart in the wilderness, did not worship at Jerusalem, did not do animal sacrifices, had their own unique version of the Jewish calendar, and were almost a different religion than Judaism. It is oldest, but its usage makes it unfit as a basis for a translation of Isaiah.

On the other hand, the Latin Vulgate has developed over the course of many centuries of usage by the Living Tradition, including usage at Mass, in the Divine Office, by scholars, Saints and Doctors, the Magisterium, etc.

So usage trumps oldest.

The Hebrew and Greek manuscripts are invaluable, but the Latin is the norm for settling any disputed or obscure points within even the Hebrew or Greek.

There are thousands of manuscripts, most of them only partial, almost all the oldest manuscripts are fragments, less than a page. There are tens of thousands of variation in the text in those manuscripts. It's complicated.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 13th June 2008, 12:22 AM
Angela Angela is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 75
Send a message via MSN to Angela Send a message via Yahoo to Angela
Default

I do have several versions but mainly use the Catholic Study Bible (NAB)

Thanks, Ron
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 23rd June 2008, 08:24 PM
Nathan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron,

Isn't the RSV based on the KJV "authorized" tradition?

I do like the RSV, though am also fond of the ESV because of the literal attention to equivalence coupled with the sense of contemporary literary quality, except that sometimes their theological bias comes through, especially in their interpretation of the passage on headcoverings in I Corinthians 11. Check it out online: it's positively wretched, and the idiosyncratic interpretation shaded by a late 20th century debate within Evangelicalism about gender complementarianism v. egalitarianism.

But it's still my pocket version.

I know what you are saying about "use," and that's why I use the new St. Athanasius translation of the Septuagint that came out earlier this year, as with most folks at my parish. But as time goes on I take the idea of an inspired textual base with more and more of a grain of salt, since the Latins claim special inspiration for the Vulgate, the Greeks for the Septuagint, and the Syrians for the Peshitta Aramaic. So increasingly I consult all three in addition to the MAsoretic HEbrew and am becoming convinced that each variant reading is probably inspired in its variance to some degree or another, whether due to "scribal errors" or not, and proper to it's own rite and tradition, in which it gained its high veneration. Is that heretical?
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 23rd June 2008, 09:02 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,765
Default

The RSV is based on the KJV, but not directly. The translators worked from original language manuscripts, but were influenced by the American Standard Version, which is based on the KJV.

Inspiration applies only to the original manuscripts. The textual variations introduced after the canon was closed cannot be inspired. They should be viewed in the manner of an edit, not an inspired change or addition. Latin is preeminent because it has been vetted by useage by the Living Tradition for many centuries. But the other languages are also important and even indispensible. Norms for Bible translation do not require Latin to be the source text, but only require the Latin as the final arbitrator of uncertain points.

As for the ESV, it improves on the RSV in many places, but you are correct that it also has some Protestant biases.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/esv.html

I recommend that all Catholics own and use a Catholic Bible. But there is nothing wrong with also using other Bible versions from time to time.

Copyist errors that were detrimental to the text tended to be corrected by the next copyist, but copyist errors that were helpful to the text tended to be retained. Thus the many copyist errors, like errors in dna, evolved the text into a better wording, much as occurs explicitly in translations and edits of the text. I call this the evolution of the Bible.

The Holy Spirit protects the transmission of Scripture just as He protects the transmission of Tradition.

Textual variants are not per se inspired, but are like an edit of the Bible text. The Bible remains inspired and the textual variants help us to better understand what the text is saying.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 24th June 2008, 01:13 PM
Nathan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron,

Thanks for this link on the ESV. Excellent and thorough analysis. The first time I read corinthians 11 in the ESV I just about fell off my chair. It was an inexpicable lapse in an otherwise great translation... but it seems from the article you linked to that inconsistency is a general shortcoming of the translation.

Question about your view of the Vulgate, though: why single it out as being vetted by use in Tradition? While it seems to have that status in the Latin rite, the Septuagint has the equivalent status among those of Slavic or Byzantine Rite, and the Peshitta is all but considered inspired once you move eastward into the Semitic rites.

By the reasoning of use in Holy Tradition, wouldn't those versions also have pride of place? On what basis would the Vulgate be a court of final appeal with regards to those versions?
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.