www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Which English Translation of the Bible Should I Use? by Metropoli

I have posted below the link to Metropolitan Isaiah's article regarding Scripture and the Orthodox Church alluded to within another thread. This is an excellent and informative article.

http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/bible_texts.html

Good article!! The comparative chart of Old Testament canons for various churches (link in first article) was also helpful. Thanks for sharing this!

Beyond the question of which English language translation one ought to use, there is a further question that I have. In determining what the Scripture has to say to us or to its meaning, should we look to the unbroken Tradition of the Church, including the exegesis of the Fathers or should we look to the scholars of today who often see the Scripture through the lens of the historico-critical (or some other) method?

A sample of this latter I heard one day at my parish and almost fell off my pew chair:

"The Scriptures were written for the needs of the communities of the authors who worte the various books and may have no relation to what Jesus taught or said. Indeed, we don't really know if anything in the Scriptures is anything that Jesus taught or said."

What say you all?

In Christ,

BOB

Dear Bob,

How often we come up against these false teachings. They're everywhere! This is all an attempt to discredit/dethrone Christ and His Church.

I know one women who has to constantly do "damage control" from statements like these that are part of a sermon. As soon as she gets into her vehicle, she explains the truth to her children. She is in the land of NO. What mixed messages for these dear little ones. Father in Church says one thing, and Mom teaches me something different.

The unnevering thing is that how many today would read/hear this and not even bat an eye. How many do not have the interest or zeal to stand up against the lies? Complacency under the disguise of charity! And yes, those who accept these false teachings would still consider themselves Christian.

Makes me sick to my stomach! And no I don't have indigestion!

"I know thy works, that thou hast the name of being alive: and thou art dead." Apoc 3:1.

Blessed is GOD!
jody

Mind boggling.

In terms of translations, my wife had used her Father's Douay-Rheims when she was younger until it fell apart. I bought her a new one this year for Christmas that was put out by Baronius Press. It seems overall like a good one to have.

Oh dear, why do pastors resort to such extreme statements? I would say that the unbroken tradition of the Church and the best of biblical scholarship should be read together. I see no threat to the faith in pointing out that the evangelists adapted Jesus' sayings and narrated events in our Lord's ministry with an eye to particular theological issues. But that is a far cry from saying that the evangelists wrote the Gospels with no concern for what the "historical" Jesus said or did. It seems to me that what is written in Dei Verbum of Vatican II makes a great deal of sense with regard to interpreting Scripture. God bless.

Joe

Of course, one problem is that the King James Version uses the byzantine New Testament text, but not the Septuagint for the Old Testament. And currently, the only English translations that contain all of the books in the Orthodox canon of Scripture are the RSV and the NRSV.

I, myself, use the Douay Rheims, NKJV, KJV, and RSV interchangeably. I can see how one could argue that the Douay Rheims, being based on St. Jerome's Vulgate, is the most faithful to the original texts. Unfortunately, it only contains the canon accepted by the western Church. I just checked www.lxx.org [lxx.org] and the Orthodox Study Bible is now set to be released by Pascha 2008. So, it looks like we have to wait another year. The good news is that it is finished and has gone to the publisher. God bless.

Joe

I need a history lesson! Forgive me where I error, I really don't understand the history of the East and seeking understanding.

If one is under Rome, then the only Official Bible is the Latin Vulgate, decreed at the Council of Trent. Which is why one would use the D-R.

But, what I am curious about is the history of the East's canons. Why are the canons accepted by Rome not the same as in the East? I thought that the Western canons were accepted around the late 300s or 400s. The Church was still one? OR is that not the issue. Does this have to do with Ecumenical Councils? I thought that St. Athanasius accepted or appoved the canons of the Western Church.

What is the history of the canons in the East? When were the canons decided on? What was the problem with Rome's decision?

I'm confused, please help!

thanks
jody

corsair, if you would like to read a good article about the Old Testament as used in the Orthodox church, I would suggest this one:

http://home.it.net.au/~jgrapsas/pages/old_testament.html

The author I think rightly points that there isn't exactly a fixed canon for the Old Testament in Orthodoxy. The official Old Testament text is still the Septuagint, which there aren't any good current English translations of, though as mentioned that is being worked on.

Regarding the Septuagint as opposed to the Vulgate, Wikipedia is I think essentially correct when it says


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

What Jerome may not have realized is almost everything quoted in the New Testament from the Old is from the LXX, not the Masoretic Text.

If this is the case, then it would seem that the Douay Rheims would put us in no better position than the King James Version. I will note, however, that the Douay Rheims correctly translates "in sins did my mother conceive me." It is the only translation I have seen that does that. All other translations say "in sin did my mother conceive me." God Bless.

Joe

That's a good point Joe. I have to say personally I'm not a real stickler for the fine details of the texts, and have always been somewhat at a loss to understand how worked up some people get about which translation is the best one. I have the NKJV OSB and the Douay Rheims and they both work for me.

I think what's written will always be subject to some issues, and that while we honor what is written, it is our encounter with the word made flesh that is the central basis of our faith.

I've also always thought the Orthodox understanding of the Bible is a good one. Meaning it is not one text we read from cover to cover and viewed the same way. Certain parts have prominence over others, and it is through the liturgies and services of the church that we primarily understand and experience what is contained in sacred scripture.

jody:

You're right on the money. I pity that poor woman. I was fortunate to have orthodox clergy in the parish when my children grew up and didn't have the problem she has.

I just listed a short snippet of the whole homily and have discussed this with some others by pm to see if I were off the wall or if there were something to this.

Much Biblical scholarship seems to me to arise from the assumption that the Apostolic Church, whether it be Latin or Eastern, somehow became corrupted and that it ignored these valuable manuscripts that have been brought together to form the basis of so many modern translations. That seems to be an assumption of the Reformation traditions and seems to lead to all kinds of speculation about what the Scripture REALLY means versus what the Church authorities say it means or the Fathers say it means. It's as if we have to "discover" the Faith that has been hidden and suppressed for so long by the official Church. The secular arena produces all sorts of things in that vein then like The DaVinci Code. It's the same thing when folks come to a Bible study and have accepted all sorts of theories to explain away the miracles recorded in Holy Writ.

Thanks.

BOB

Joe:

I believe that they resort to this sort of thing when they have become bored with the Faith and seek out all sorts of new theories in place of it. Sort of a response to spiritual accidie. There are those who run after every theory that comes along and it gives them some false sense that they have "progressed" in the spiritual life because they have left behind what they learned at an earlier stage of their lives. On the other hand, I was always taught that we must persevere to the end and keep the Faith as we have been taught it, neither adding to or subtracting from, it.

When pastors or scholars step into the area of saying that the authors "adapted" Jesus' sayings, what effect does that have on the idea that Scripture is divinely inspired and inerrant? If it is divinely inspired, then by "adapting" Jesus' words, they involve the Holy Spirit in something less than the truth. God is Truth. Can He be involved in less than Truth?

BOB

I like Joe Melikite's list of translations:

KJV
NKJV
RSV
Douay-Rheims

I would add to it, the Orthodox New Testament,
The Third Millenium Bible,
The Confaternity Version,
and, also the English Standard version [ESV]- although I don't like its translation of 1 Timothy 2:15.

If I was on a desert Island though, I would probably want the RSV with apocrypha and the Orthodox New Testament.

For accuracy, I'm inclined toward the Douay-Rheims. It's Old Testament is far better than most, which (KJV included) tend to rely too much on the Masoretic text. The King James and RSV New Testaments are pretty good, both in terms of accuracy and style, being largely based on the standard Byzantine Greek text.

Honestly though, I am kind of looking forward to seeing the new translation of the Septuagint that is being done by the Eastern-Orthodox in English. I hope it lives up to expectations.