I don't know if You'll be satisfied with this answer, right now I haven't yet written much about how I actually choose word-for-word which translation to use, and my brother arrives in 8 minutes from now for the Christmas celebration. But I'll edit this post when I'm able to put down in writing more fully what my reasons are! EDIT: now I'm continuing to add some things but not much about the method.
Unix,
What criteria do you use to determine the "best version" for any Bible translation?
Thank You, OzSpen for bringing up this thread and that subject! In both regards I've waited "nervously".
Well, first of all it's the question about how to determine which Bible versions to compare. It seems like most Christians, during their life, compare at least 2 versions, but it seems to be often mere happenstance which ones.
So, to avoid the same errors many are doing when selecting Bible versions, I've done two or three things:
1) What I can do, is to read as many opinions about Bible versions as I have the chance to. In other words that means that I browse forums and search internet for comparisons and tidbits, quite often, and continue to do after I think I have settled my mind.
I've read opionions saying that JB has often brilliant renderings, and that's what I've also noticed myself often.
2) What I can also rather easily do, is to collect Bibles during a very long time period, now I've been collecting them both in the mid-'00s and during 2011. I've also got rid of Bibles, that is also important, otherwise the curiosity towards certain versions would cause over-usage of those. Another thing that effectively held back my curiosity and most, and foremost usage of, the Bibles I would otherwise used the most, was the fact that I was atheist for 5 years somewhat recently, about until a year ago.
To not place orders on Bibles in a haste, I have so far not had an bankcard, but depended on others through whom I've made the orders.
3) To not make the layout a significant question, or the binding, or the extras. The Bible I use the most frequently, an 8-translation parallel New Testament is bulky (due to that it has wide space in between the translations and somewhat wide margins) and paperback and lacks parts of the footnotes.
* Christians often use electronic editions of Bibles to get hands on different versions. But I avoid that approach, since that effectively excludes Bibles that are not on the internet, or at least the footnotes are missing, such as REB is entirely missing, and RSV-2CE (only RSV-CE and the regular RSV(-P) is on the internet, although the differences are of course scarce) and CENT (Common English New Testament, from the 19th century), and 1997 Revised Jewish Publication Society Psalms, and Phillips NT, and 1971 GNB 3rd edition (and perhaps the 1976 4th edition is equally missing from the internet, I haven't checked since I have it, the NT, in printed form), and 2004(-2005) Good As New.
* Another usual error Christians do, is that they don't pay attention to the fact that versions are often revised and newer is almost always worse. Comparing for example Confraternity version (done in the '40s-'60s) with the newest NAB (OT done in 2010, NT done in 1986) the
older is better,
but the oldest is the worst: (the Douay-Reims done + revised in the 16th-19th centuries)! I use the 2010 NABRE OT for many long passages, but those are mostly such passages which never or almost never get read by me nor most Christians.
Another case when the newer, but not newest, is the best edition, is the Common English New Testament, (from the 19th century), being better than both the AV from the 17th-18th century and the Third Millenium Bible/21st Century Version. Another case is of course that NJB in very few short passages which are only in Mt, Lk and 1 Jn 2-5, is better than JB which is far superiour, despite that I've often read that people choose to place an order on the NJB without regarding the JB or CTS New Catholic Bible.
Secondly, mostly the word-for-word translation is not of interest. I'm OK with a slant of what the translators thought the passage would mean. JB is just on the spot in regards of dynamic equivalence. English is so far from Hebrew and Greek, and the tought-pattern of the modern man has changed since Biblical times.
Thirdly, footnotes are important, that, among other reasons, is what weighs down such versions as NAB and NJB, and adds to the value of JB and Confraternity version a lot.
Book introductions are also good to have in some Bible, and JB fills that need excelently.
Now to the question how I actually handle the about a dozen NT translations that I read side-by-side:
Firstly, I would like to say, that I read only one or a few words at a time, not even an entire verse. It's fine by me that this process will cause many years of slow reading and a lot of use of time. I don't even want to read the entire Bible since I find reading-through to be a completely unnecessary procedure and I've almost read through hastily almost 20 years ago in Finnish, except the Deuterocanonicals.
I don't forget which version I chose, since I do a rectangle around it with a pen.
Well, one aspect, is that it has to closely reflect Catholic teaching, which means that there is no obvious translation to choose, NAB is far from
so Catholic as people use to think, and JB is in the middle-grounds between Protestantism and Catholicism. 1992 GNT-CE is not among the most reliable versions, it's just fever-worded and that's a reason why I use it and 1971 GNB 3rd edition and 1976 GNB 4th edition. I'm OK with Bibles that omit the Deuterocanonicals wholly or partially, after all there's just one fairly good translation that includes 2 Esdras: REB, and it's too harsh to let that limit the selection.
I've divided the Bible in different portions and use different approaches to each portion:
* Genesis 2010 NABRE, 1948 Confraternity Version, 1989 REB, 1966 JB
* Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy 6:5, Deuteronomy 34 UNDECIDED
* Ruth REB
* The rest of the books of the OT NABRE and Confraternity Version, except not the Confraternity Version for those books which had not been translated for the 1961 edition, (see Wikipedia for details)
* Ezra NABRE
* 1 Maccabees Updated Bible Version 2.16 and NABRE
* 2 Maccabees UNDECIDED
* Parts of Job NKJV, the rest NABRE
* Minor parts of the Psalter REB (135:12-144:4), the rest UNDECIDED, I have practically never read the Psalter, so I'm completely lost there for now. I have the 1997 Revised Jewish Publication Society Psalter, perhaps that's what I'll use to most part!
* Sirach Confraternity Version. But note that I don't read the entire Sirach: I limit it by what
UPDV Updated Bible Version - The Wisdom of Sirach says. The modern scholarship I get from the Updated Bible Version 2.16.
* Isaiah JB
* Daniel 7:13 I compare several versions, such as REB and NABRE and Confraternity version. The rest of Daniel, IF I'll read it: NABRE
* Obadiah, Micah I've planned to compare REB and NABRE
* Jonah REB and JB
* Parts of Nahum, Haggai REB, rest from NABRE
* For the OT I also have the New Jewish Publication Society Tanakh, but UNDECIDED for which passages I'll utilize it!
* 2 Esdras REB of course
* Mt 1:18-17:6 mainly CPDV with a lot of corrections; Mt 27:64 1962 NASB
* Lk 7:37 HCSB, 9:1-:22 CPDV
* Jn 20:8-21:5 CPDV
* Ro 1:1 RSV-CE; 3:25c, 4:1 1971 GNB 3rd edition; 5:6, 8:24 NEB; 8:1 CPDV
...and so on... using about a dozen versions in the NT, among which are also in addition to the ones I didn't mention in this post: NEB, Phillips, 1973 NIV for very few verses, RSV-CE limitedly, sometimes only the footnote from it, LB just for some verses where I feel certain, 1992 GNT
The epistles of the NT REB - this is where I use the REB the most. A few verses from the Common English New Testament, and also Updated Bible Version 2.16 for some of 1 Corinthians
* 1986 NAB NT for for example Ro 6:11, 8:38-:39.
* 1 Jn 1966 JB, 1989 REB, 1972 Phillips revised edition, 1976 GNB 4th edition, 2012 Updated Bible Version 2.16, 1986 NAB NT, NEB, 1941 Confraternity version NT, 1971 GNB 3rd edition NT, 1985 NJB, RSV-CE, 1992 GNT-CE, '60s-'70s LB, 1973 NIV NT, 2008 Comprehensive New Testament, 2009 CPDV, 1970 NAB. A TOTAL OF 17 VERSIONS compared side-by-side
Sorry that I don't have time to list which version I use for each book! This list above was summoned in a haste, I could have done it a bit more specific.
I'm really thinking right now, how is it that I select a certain version for a specific passage?! Well, I choose what's:
the most advanced,
gives meaning (but NO I don't try to search for the one that "opens up", because that would be a contradiction to the advanced-criteria),
I prefer Brittish over American English but that's of course not something I can use as a preference all the time,
and he right literary style - this is the point that is the hardest to explain
...
Do you read Greek and/or Hebrew to know the accuracy of any translation?
Oz
For just a few verses and words inte the entire Bible, yes I do, for very decisive verses, such as Is 7:14 (there are proof for that it should read maiden or virgin), that's one reason why I regard the Jerusalem Bible (JB) to be the best all-in-all. In addition to that Jerusalem Bible is what the Church here in the EU recommends, plus a feature of it, is that not all Deuterocanonical books are included, only the ones still in actual use by the RCC (nowadays).
Pick up a copy of the Jerusalem Bible with annotations -- while based on a Catholic viewpoint (and including the deuterocanonicals), they're scrupulously fair about annotating every time a verse is of debatable origin or of unclear meaning in the original Hebrew (or Greek -- it's rare in the NT). They give what the translators believe to be a clear rendering, and then footnote it to give alternate readings, manuscript sources that include, omit, or give variant readings for that passage, etc.
For Jas 1:2-2:2, 2:14-5:20 I use somewhat much Greek, since I have a commentary by Richard Bauckham, Routledge 1999.
I have chosen which manuscripts to follow for Mt and Lk: Codex Bezae, plus for Mt the ones I mention in:
http://www.christianforums.com/t82033/#post1504317
... I don't anymore recommend the manuscript for Mt I mention in that post!
For the NT it's not that hard to follow the Greek, since there is the book I mention in
http://www.christianforums.com/t782894/#post9102981, plus there's COM (Comprehensive New Testamant, by Clontz), of course it has bias, a lot, but at least it's word-for-word with footnotes about what the Greek actually says, and follows strictly the NA27/UBSGNT4-text.