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

In the Melkite church, the English-language Apostolos and Euangelion come from the Confraternity version. Archbishop Raya and Baron de Vinck made a few changes.

I find, though, that the English is so old that it is not easily understood by congregations, for whom English is not their first language.

Right. I knew there was a difference but was not sure what it was.

To tell you the truth - I am not sure I use any certain translation anymore. If I am interested in some text - I usually pull out all my resources (beginning with a transliteration for Greek or Hebrew depending) and interrogate the line or paragraph etc. We are lucky in this day and age to have such great resources at our finger tips. And I also compare translations. But I find transliteration to be best for me.

No single tranlation carries the full meaning of the original text. Be the text Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, etc., play on words and sound-alike nuance is always lost in a translation. And scripture is so full of word-play. Every translation makes assumptions regarding the intent of the text, assumptions which may or may not be accurate. And so translations often continue errors which have been passed down for centuries.

Anyways .. (just yakking)...

thanks for letting me know about the Mass readings. I had often wondered.

-ray

Ah, fortunately for us, the Confraternity version is still available - Sinagtala has the complete Confraternity Bible available brand new, the only place I know of that does. I own two copies. Here is the link:

http://www.sinagtala.com/single_bibles_catechisms_holybible.htm

The New Testament is availabe from these sources brand new:

http://www.scepterpublishers.org/pr..._Testament_Confraternity_Pocket_Edition_

http://www.ewtnreligiouscatalogue.c...no=3/edp_no=3237/shop.axd/ProductDetails

The English is an older style, but I love it, I love the way it reads. It is 100x better than the NAB. I wish we still used it broadly in this country.

Being in London recently I took the advantage of going the the Sacred writings exhibition which is currently in the British Library. (Hebrew, Christian and Islamic texts).
I was surprised to find one variant reading of one of the gospels which includes an incident of healing taking place at the river Jordan. (Is anyone aware of this text?)
Stephanos I

Has anyone checked out the NASB (New American Standard Bible) published by the Lockman Foundation? It claims to be the most literal though without the Deuterocanonicals.
Blessings! Silouan, monk

I recommend the OSB and the DRB.

The missing dueterocanon would be an obstacle for being a serious work bible for me. I have seen the NASB, and it does look like a good translation. I have heard some people say that it has some Protestant bias, but I do not know the translation well enough to know how much it is, or if there is.

You should use the ESV (English Standard Version)

Dear Bob
I echo the comments of those who use the Patristics and tradition to interpret scripture. The historical-critical method seems to lean very much on educational speculation, seemingly discounting eyewitness reports built into scripture. For an interesting book review on that point, please reference the Oct 2007 issue of FIRST THINGS, pp. 41-43

TIM:

Caught another one the other morning. Seems there are those who discount the story of Jonah as being strictly a fable--"There was no Jonah, there was no whale, and there was no Jonah walking through Ninevah calling for repentance."

Then the next morning we hear Jesus referring to Jonah and his three days in the belly of the whale--a veiled reference to His own three days in the Tomb.

I love the blind who cannot see the connections from one dya to the next.

BOB

Bob,
C.S. Lewis suggested the possibility that Jonah was a parable and not a historical text. It is also not unreasonable to think of Job as possibly being a fictional character. Of course, we have no idea whether they are characters in a parable or characters in history, but what does it matter? The historial critical methods of biblical exegesis and their use in translating the texts seems to be perfectly acceptable as long as they are kept within modest limits.

Joe

Job is not introduced like a historical figure. Why would he be a historical figure, rather than a type, if it is the case that the Israelites were concerned with family ties and lineage and there are none for him?

Terry

Such notable Orthodox theologians such as Fr. Lev Gillet and Fr. Sergius Bulgakov have expressed the opinion that we may use the historical-critical method, as long as we keep to the Church's interpretation of Scripture. The historical-critical method I think goes wrong when the scholar approaches the text with pre-conceived rationalistic notion, such as a priori rejection of supernatural events in the Bible.

I think that the historical-critical method has and can actually buttress the way in which Catholics and Orthodox traditionally understand the Bible. For instance, scholarship has proven that the Scripture is a product of the community.

As much as I detest the theology and books of Bishop Spong, he actually has a great couple of chapters in his book Liberating the Gospels. He goes into great detail about how the bible was written and read in the ancient church to fit a lectionary cycle.

The down side to the historical-critical method is that its "uncritical" use if you will, has led to the destruction of the mainline Protestant churches of the west, and I am concerned that some Catholic exegetes are falling into the same trap of using the historical-critical method "uncritically." Some have even adopted the same rationalist attitudes of the liberal Protestants and Jesus Seminar- at least some in the Catholic Church- I can't say about the Orthodox.

I met a Catholic Bible scholar who insisted that if Jesus' tomb was not empty Easter monrning, that it would not invalidate the resurrection, for him it was a "faith experience," not about an empty tomb. To me, that is scandolous for a Catholic scholar to hold to such a position.

Still we do not need to reject the use of critical tools outright in our study of the Bible because of the apostasy and unbelief of some. Rather, we approach the text with a prayerful attitude, seeking to be filled with the Holy Spirit and to read the Bible with mind of the Church. Proceeding in this manner does not proclude the careful use of historical-critical tools.

For now, I use the original RSV of 1971, with Apocrypha, especially in the New Oxford Annotated edition, with 3rd & 4th Maccabees and Psalm 151. It is a great study Bible that makes use of some historical-critical scholarship. I am reading 2nd Esdras now, and it is very beneficial to have an edition with notes to facilitate understanding of the text.

Excellent translation, an Evangelical revision of the Revised Standard Version. It only has a 6% text change from the RSV. I own one now, but do not use it much because it does not have the Apocrypha. But I received an e-mail from the organization that sponsors it, and apparently, an edition with the Apocrypha is on the way.

For now, I use the RSV with Apocrypha, especially in the New Oxford Annotated edition, with 3rd & 4th Maccabees and Psalm 151.