www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology What Bible version do you use?

+AMDG+

I personally use the D-R because it uses the same English Style as the KJV. I guess I can't get away from my Southern Babtist roots.

I personally also like the psalter found in the 1928 BCP. Having Jewish ancestry, I must admit that nothing beats the psalms in Hebrew.

I used to use the New American, but found it to be an abhorible translation as it was full of errors and inclusive language.

My suggestion is to buy a D-R which is available from www.tanbooks.com [tanbooks.com] for $35. A real BARGAIN.

Joe Zollars

You have all reminded me that I have to get back into my one time daily habit of Scriptural reading. I've been a bad, bad Indian...

To answer the question, I use the RSV-CE, the DR, and a Confraternity version which I am lucky enough to have, but which has the first three chapters of Genesis missing.

I have a Book of Psalms (NAB) which I use when praying the Divine Office, since my Syrian books don't have the Psalter published within them. The NAB version was the only small book of Psalms I could find at the time, but I'm not too pleased. I wish I could find a Psalter using the Grail translation used in the Latin Divine Office (English translation) which I used to pray daily before moving to the Syrian books. I liked that translation...very singable, I thought. I'm tempted to look up the Psalms in the Latin books I own as needed and use them for the Syrian office, but I was hoping I could find a single Grail book. I also use a small pocket sized NAB when I'm on the go because only the NAB has a complete edition that small. But I share the dislike of many for this translation...

Oh well!

Mor Ephrem,

The Abbey Psalter, which is a BEAUTIFUL book, and which just begs to be chanted from, uses the Grail translation. You can get it from Amazon for about $35. It is not, however a "pocket" book, unless you are the Jolly Green Giant.

Cheers,

Sharon

Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com

Here is my $.02 worth: Paulist Press publishes the Grail Psalter in paperback which we use in our Community for the Office. I discovered that the Trappist Abbey in Ava, Missouri uses this edition. It sells for $9.95. The ISBN is 0-8091-1669-3.
It even comes with a meditation before each psalm which is beautiful.
Paulist Press address is:
997 Macarthur Blvd.
Mahwah, NJ 07430

I'm quite sure they must have a web site where this psalter may be ordered.
Only blessings, Silouan

If you want to know anything about what the Paulist Press publishes send me an email. My cousin is a publishing nun there.

I like to use the OSB for my NT reading as well, esp. for the footnotes. I go between the NIV and the NRSV for most of my study or quotes or whatever. The NAB with the revised NT is OK. The thing I absolutely despise is the NAB translation used in the Ruthenian Gospel and Epistle books - I'm constantly giving the congregation alternate translations when I have to preach on anything.
I do wish I had been able to learn Greek and read the originals, but I have to make due with what I've got!
-Fr Ron

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I use the Jerusalem Bible for my daily study of the Old Testament. I use the "Orthodox New Testament" which is a direct translation from the original Greek by the 'Holy Apostles Greek Orthodox Convent' in Buena Vista, Colorado for my New Testament Studies. They quote heavily from the Eastern Fathers and it is like sitting at their feet to read the footnotes. For my Psalter I use the Orthodox Psalter published by Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Brookline Ma --- my priest notes that it remains true to the text of the LXX.

I have a copy of the Orthodox Study Bible but currently only use it when studying with a non-orthodox or non-catholic person as I feel the "Orthodox New Testament" with its foot notes far surpass the Orthodox Study Bible. I also beleiev that The Orthodox Study Bible still has a somewhat "protestant " feel about it.

Your brother in Christ,
Thomas

Dear Friends,

I once prepared a little speech for my employer who was going to participate in a prayer breakfast.

I used the RSV for the bible quote. When the dear fellow read it on the podium, many of those in the audience turned to each other whispering: O my God! He's not using the KJV!! How could he!"

Who says Protestants don't believe in infallibility?

"If the KJV was good enough for St Paul, it's good enough for me."

Alex

I very much like the translation of Msgr. Ronald Knox, though it has long been out of print. I try to snatch up used copies whenever I find them.
I hope someone reprints it someday. Its a beauty!

Michael

Dear Michael,

A beautiful translation indeed!

FYI, Knox, an Anglican convert to Catholicism, personally loved the KJV and the language of the BCP in King Charles I's time.

As a Catholic, he continued to attend Anglican services in honour of King Charles the Martyr and even attempted to introduce the cause of this Anglican martyr at Rome, along with that of King Henry VI.

Alex

The varied replies here give testimony to the fact that, as was mentioned by someone, with any translation, no one version is going to be perfect and are each in their own way, an interpretation of the original. With any human endeavor, errancy is going to play a certain part.

I think that to a large extent, one's preference in biblical translations relates to what is familiar to the ear - what someone is used to hearing, probably from an early age, in church and in private reading.

It amazes me to this day, that so many Orthodox insist on the King James Version, both original and new. While I don't have a real problem with this for one's personal use, I feel strongly that it is most inappropriate for liturgical use or any kind of official approbation, due mainly to the fact that it is not, in any strict sense of the definition, an "Orthodox bible." Being prepared for the Church of England, this translation does not contain all of the canonical books of the bible - the "deutrocanonical" writings that are found in Catholic and Orthodox scriptures, but not in most Protestant. Those who defend and insist on the KJV are usually of the type that oppose any so-called "modernism" or "innovation" in the church and pride themselves on being so correct and orthodox. How then, if no room can be left for development or unessential departure from what has been accepted by the church in a different age, can it be ok for an exception to be made in regards to the use of the KJV? If one wants to be a legalist and Orthodox in the absolutely strictest sense of the words, then a bible that is not complete can hardly be considered acceptable for the "Holy Orthodox Church." The debate about the KJV shows that sentimentality can indeed play a part in one's preferences.

Besides this legalistic view, I feel personally that translations that use archaic and misunderstood English are not at all acceptable for use in the liturgy, because, say what you may, very few people today, that are not schooled in the particularities of the English language that are no longer in spoken use, will not understand a good portion of what is translated in the KJV and other old-English translations. Sad for some who are attached to these styles, but nevertheless very true. A scripture that is to be proclaimed in the assembly should be easy to understand, flow with grace from the lips of the reader/proclaimer and speak with the nuances of English or whatever other language is the spoken tongue of the congregation. I really don't think that people should have to bring a dictionary or thesaurus with them to church, so that they can understand what is begin proclaimed in the readings. The Liturgy of the Word, to use a current preferred term, is so important to our participation in worship that we simply cannot risk loosing people's attention or understanding just to preserve a version of scripture that we may feel is more appropriate for liturgical use. The message of the scriptures is much more important than the style of the translation and this must be conveyed to the people listening.

For my own use, I prefer the original New American Bible, mostly because it is what I am most familiar with from its use in yes, the Ruthenian lectionaries that we have had for the past 20 - 30 years. While there may indeed have been liberties taken in translation, I think that it is a very understandable version to the average person, without being overly simplistic or employing too much paraphrasing, such as versions like the "Good News Bible" etc. The Jerusalem Bible, both former and newer, cited by some of you here, is well spoken of, although I have not myself used it very much. The RSV is also a perfectly complete and Orthodox/Catholic bible and seems to be acceptable to a wide range of readers. It also is a more literal translation, thus satisfying those with a need for more absolutism.

I think that there must be a distinction made between biblical translations used for personal spiritual reading and those that are designed for proclamation at the liturgy. There is something to be said also for translations that flow poetically or musically, especially in our sung liturgies. What is good for one use may not necessarily be appropriate for another.

I don't have a problem with versions such as the New, New American Bible or the New RSV, although I realize that inclusive language poses a difficulty for some people. In my opinion, if being more gender inclusive satisfies the sensitivities of some of our people, then it does not indicate necessarily a deviation from the meaning of scripture. I mean this to refer to inclusive language when referring to humanity or men and women together. Gender inclusiveness when referring to God himself is a different issue altogether and one that necessitates much caution and is not generally desirable because it can change both historical fact and the reality of faith.

I was disappointed with the Orthodox Study Bible mainly because of its choice of a not completely canonical translation and lack of the complete scriptures. For a book bearing the Orthodox signature, should the compilers not have chosen a translation that, if used in its entirety, would have all of the books that are accepted by the church? Also, it is not a bible in the strict sense, but rather an "Orthodox New Testament."

I do have a personal liking for the Douay-Rheims version, which was well known to many Catholics in the mid-twentieth century, although I wouldn't recommend it for proclamation.

My suggestion would be that, to please more people overall, the RSV original translation should take precedence, because it is acceptable to more people cross-denominationally - being revered by most Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants. My reservations with non-canonical compilations of scripture is that they are not representative of truly acceptable versions from the Catholic or Orthodox reasoning. Above all, should be the consideration that the scriptures are rendered in a way that the meaning can be understood by the people listening to or reading from them. Joe

Dear Joe,

I am not a promoter of the King James Version, but the original compilers did, in fact, provide all the deuterocanonical books that the Roman Catholic Church accepts and placed them in between the Testaments, as the Common RSV Bible does.

It was much later that certain Protestants insisted on removing those books but these were often published and made available under separate cover and I have just one such copy.

The deuterocanonicals varied, of course, and the RC Church included the Epistles of Clement and the Prayer of Manasses in an appendix following the New Testament.

The Greek and Russian Churches have yet to establish a mutually agreed upon and single canon for the Old Testament with respect to the deuterocanonical books.

There are bibles who publish all of the books of the Churches, but I find that their understanding of just what is "deuterocanonical" and what is "apocryphal" is faulty.

For example, the English translations that include the fourth book of the Maccabees define it as "Orthodox deuterocanonical scripture" which it certainly is not, but is apocryphal.

Some translations also say that the Greek tradition includes books in Scripture which are apocryphal which is like saying something is not scripture but is included in scripture anyway.

In that case even the Protestants had, for over the first 150 years of their existence, included such books in their bibles for "edified reading" but which were not considered scripture.

Anyway, the NAB, the RSVCE and the Jerusalem Bible are O.K. by me!!

Alex

The original version (1600's) of the KJV included all of the Deutrocanonical Books. They were omitted in all versions appearing after the rise of Cromwell and his minions.

Thomas Nelson and Sons did a reprint of the original edition a number of years ago. It contained all of this material.

I say this not to advocate the version for liturgical use; only to set the facts straight.

Michael

It amazes me to this day, that so many Orthodox insist on the King James Version, both original and new. While I don't have a real problem with this for one's personal use, I feel strongly that it is most inappropriate for liturgical use or any kind of official approbation, due mainly to the fact that it is not, in any strict sense of the definition, an "Orthodox bible." Being prepared for the Church of England, this translation does not contain all of the canonical books of the bible - the "deutrocanonical" writings that are found in Catholic and Orthodox scriptures, but not in most Protestant. Those who defend and insist on the KJV are usually of the type that oppose any so-called "modernism" or "innovation" in the church and pride themselves on being so correct and orthodox. How then, if no room can be left for development or unessential departure from what has been accepted by the church in a different age, can it be ok for an exception to be made in regards to the use of the KJV? If one wants to be a legalist and Orthodox in the absolutely strictest sense of the words, then a bible that is not complete can hardly be considered acceptable for the "Holy Orthodox Church." The debate about the KJV shows that sentimentality can indeed play a part in one's preferences.

RSV

I wish someone would produce a useable and friendly RSV Apostle and Gospel Book.