Bible versions

[Wgw]

1. RSV: The commentary isn't bad, the translation is okay, and it has all the traditional books in it.
2. Yes. I use the RSV and Eastern Orthodox Bible for general reading. In addition for study I bring in the NETS and the Patriarchal Text, but I don't do that sort of thing very often.
3. The RSV, the EOB and the Patriarchal Text accommodate my denomination better. The RSV because it contains all the traditional books; the EOB is a great modern translation. Both the RSV and the EOB suffer from stilted, dour writing, but there's not much to be done about that when people want study bibles. Also, the KJV because of its beauty. As for the Patriarchal Text, it is the text used by the Greek Churches and is very beautiful and complete.
4. Same as above.
5. Aside from the obvious outs, the NIV and NSRV are very manipulative translations. The NSRV translation of Psalm 51 is especially horrifying, and the NIV messes around with stuff for the Evangelicals' sakes.
6. The Patriarchal Text is pretty accurate to what I think is true and beautiful, from what little I've seen.

Is this EOB different from the Orthodox Study Bible?

 

[Wgw]

So I was curious about a few things;

1. What is your go-to Bible and why?
2. Do you use multiple versions for a) general use or b) study purposes?
3. Do you feel particular versions fit or accommodate particular denominations better than others? If so, which ones and why?
4. Do you feel a particular version accommodates your own beliefs better than others? If so, which one and why?
5. Are there any versions you would vehemently discourage the use of and why?
6. In your opinion, what do you believe to be the most accurate version to date and why?

I don't have answers or speculations for questions 3, 4, 5 or 6, but my answers for 1 and 2 are as follows;


1 -- ESV. I started out with KJV but ultimately found that despite KJV being beautiful in its own way, the ESV enabled me to understand better and it was generally a more enjoyable and easy going experience.
Not to say the acquisition of knowledge, particularly Biblical knowledge, should be easy, but the KJV was a little taxing and I was glad to change over to the ESV.


2 -- Before I changed over to ESV from KJV, I'd often times read the same verse in the ESV to try and understand it better if it was particularly difficult to understand without labouring too much over it. My current study Bible is an ESV as well.

1. It depends on what I am trying to do; the commentary in the OSB is very helpful, but the style of the text leaves much to be desired; the Murdock translation of the Peshitta has particularly delicate Victorian-influenced Jacobean Emglish of the sort that conjurs up images of the wood pnalled dining room at Simpson's in the Strand, mostly anyway, aside from certain annoyances in terms of the use of non-standard language; the Douay Rheims has a psalter that aligns with LXX versification, the KJV has lively prose, and so on. I suppose it very much depends on what sort of mood I am in. Consulting with dynamic equivalence modern translations like the NIV is a useful way to avoid translation related controverst.
2. Yes.
3. This is primarily a question of liturgics. For Syriac Orthodoxy the Peshitta is an obvious choice, as is the Vulgate for Latin Rite Catholicism.
4. My views deprecate the Masoretic Text in favor of older Hebrew texts or translations like the Septuagint or Vulgate; it is fallacious to suppose the Masoretic is automatically more reliable just by virtue of being in Hebrew. That said I do not entirely reject the MT or derivatives of it like the KJV OT.
5. The most recent edition of the NIV, the TNIV and other versions that seek to impose gender-neutral language for political purposes, also certain dubious Dynamic Equivalence translations such as The Living Bible.
6. I believe the various traditional translations such as the Vulgate, Peshitta and OT Septuagint offer the most reliability; in terms of English bibles the most reliable OT and NT in one binding is the Douay Rheims, which benefits from being a translation of the Vulgate, which was translated from Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic by the well respected critic of Origenism, St. Jerome. However, one could do better by using another vintage translation of the Septuagint, the Sir Lancelot Brenton version, together with one of several formal equivalence translations of the NT (the KJV would be fine).

 

[Cappadocious]

Is this EOB different from the Orthodox Study Bible?

Yes.

http://www.orthodox-church.info/eob/

 

[Wgw]

Yes.

http://www.orthodox-church.info/eob/

The website says "The EOB documents a few instances where sound Eastern Orthodox scholarship would not necessary agree with the OSB footnotes, as in Acts and Revelation."

This I have to confess makes me uncomfortable, simoly because I am a great admirer of Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, who was a major force on the OSB project, and I have found that those voices in Orthodoxy that tend to take a position in opposition to his can be a bit too triumphalist for my tastes. I will read their free sample however, and if it is any good stylistically or in terms of commentary I might buy it. I very much dislike the style of the NKJV on which the OSB is based; even the risible NIV manages to be more elegant. Although I don't really use it for anything other than the commentary. One respect where the EOB might come in handy is commentary on certain passages not treated on by the OSB.

 

[Cappadocious]

I am a great admirer of Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, who was a major force on the OSB project, and I have found that those voices in Orthodoxy that tend to take a position in opposition to his can be a bit too triumphalist for my tastes.

I agree with you about Metropolitan Kallistos Ware. However, in this case, Metropolitan Kallistos's contribution is one of the exceptions to the rule. The OSB by-and-large failed to have insightful scholarly footnotes and articles, and is more like an Evangelical study bible than a Roman Catholic, Anglican or Orthodox study bible. It ended up being a complete mess and was pushed through by Thomas Nelson.

 

[Wgw]

I agree with you about Metropolitan Kallistos Ware. However, in this case, Metropolitan Kallistos's contribution is one of the exceptions to the rule. The OSB by-and-large failed to have insightful scholarly footnotes and articles, and is more like an Evangelical study bible than a Roman Catholic, Anglican or Orthodox study bible. It ended up being a complete mess and was pushed through by Thomas Nelson.

Hmm, you might have a point there.

My dream Orthodox Bible would take a corrected, basically KJV NT, coupled with the Sir Lancelot Brenton Septuagint and the Jordanville Psalter for the OT portion.

 

[~Anastasia~]

The website says "The EOB documents a few instances where sound Eastern Orthodox scholarship would not necessary agree with the OSB footnotes, as in Acts and Revelation."

This I have to confess makes me uncomfortable, simoly because I am a great admirer of Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, who was a major force on the OSB project, and I have found that those voices in Orthodoxy that tend to take a position in opposition to his can be a bit too triumphalist for my tastes. I will read their free sample however, and if it is any good stylistically or in terms of commentary I might buy it. I very much dislike the style of the NKJV on which the OSB is based; even the risible NIV manages to be more elegant. Although I don't really use it for anything other than the commentary. One respect where the EOB might come in handy is commentary on certain passages not treated on by the OSB.

I have an electronic EOB NT that I know I got for free. I can probably find the website that offers it if you need a link. Actually I wanted to find out if they have an OT.

I've been re-reading the Gospels in the EOB lately, and really, REALLY appreciating it. But as I mentioned, the NT at least is free online ...

 

[prodromos]

I agree with you about Metropolitan Kallistos Ware. However, in this case, Metropolitan Kallistos's contribution is one of the exceptions to the rule. The OSB by-and-large failed to have insightful scholarly footnotes and articles, and is more like an Evangelical study bible than a Roman Catholic, Anglican or Orthodox study bible. It ended up being a complete mess and was pushed through by Thomas Nelson.

I also lost a bit of confidence in the people behind the OSB when I found what appears to be a deliberate omission in Isaiah 22

 

[Cappadocious]

I also lost a bit of confidence in the people behind the OSB when I found what appears to be a deliberate omission in Isaiah 22

What was the omission?

 

[prodromos]

What was the omission?

Isaiah 22:22 (OSB) reads;
I will give him the glory of David, and he shall rule and no one will oppose him.

Septuagint reads as follows;
καὶ δώσω τὴν δόξαν Δαυὶδ αὐτῷ, καὶ ἄρξει, καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ὁ ἀντιλέγων. καὶ δώσω αὐτῷ τὴν κλεῖδα οἴκου Δαυὶδ ἐπὶ τῷ ὤμῳ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀνοίξει, καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ὁ ἀποκλείων, καὶ κλείσει καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ὁ ἀνοίγων.

The bold text is missing from the OSB

 

[Cappadocious]

What would motivate the omission?

 

[prodromos]

What would motivate the omission?

Your guess is as good as mine

 

[chevyontheriver]

What is your go-to Bible and why?

1. Do you use multiple versions for a) general use or b) study purposes?
2. Do you feel particular versions fit or accommodate particular denominations better than others? If so, which ones and why?
3. Do you feel a particular version accommodates your own beliefs better than others? If so, which one and why?
4. Are there any versions you would vehemently discourage the use of and why?
5. In your opinion, what do you believe to be the most accurate version to date and why?.

I tend to use the RSVCE (Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition) now for general and study purposes. Before that I mainly used the NIV and NAB. Most of my reading of the Bible over they years was NAB, a Catholic Bible that was used at the time at mass. It was my first Bible and is now barely held together by lots of tape. The poor old NAB was great for some books and not so great in others. I bought the NIV when it first came out and used it quite a bit as well. I used a Jerusalem Bible, but not that much. I don't pretend to be good enough at Greek to make my Greek test of the NT anything other than a diversion.

I think the NIV was very particularly translated with an evangelical bias. When it came to critical meaning I could not fully trust it. I realized I was always having to verify the sense of the NIV with other translations and so it ended up more on the shelf.

Not particularly. I want something that is literal and somewhat literary. With a solid sense of the original idioms but also understandable English. I know the two don't perfectly go together, but for me it is better than paraphrase or being so literal it is difficult to read.

I know the KJV crowd really like that version, and there are Catholics who similarly really like the DR (Douay Rheims). But they use almost a different language and I wonder how many KJV and DR users mislead themselves seriously in pursuit of an untainted Bible. On the other hand I guess I would say that there are versions that are so politically correct that I wouldn't use them. Like the nRSV or the rNAB or the revised NIV which have moved away from literality in pursuit of a gender inclusiveness not in the originals. So I guess I want literal and modern even if those don't perfectly go together either. And unless you just want confirmation of evangelical beliefs I would avoid the NIV and it's successors. I don't think I am vehement about any of this, so if you really want to use one of those versions, go ahead.

I think the RSVCE and the underlying RSV do pretty well. I know there are some much newer efforts but have not pursued them yet. I guess the ESV is supposed to be good. I've also seen the RSVCE-second edition, which updates some of the archaic language of the RSV, and found that to be good. I will probably adopt another version some day, but for now RSVCE does OK for me.

 

[Wgw]

I have an electronic EOB NT that I know I got for free. I can probably find the website that offers it if you need a link. Actually I wanted to find out if they have an OT.

I've been re-reading the Gospels in the EOB lately, and really, REALLY appreciating it. But as I mentioned, the NT at least is free online ...

Can you PM me that link?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Can you PM me that link?

I'll put here, and pm you too.

I went in and looked at it - what I'm using is an app I added to my Bible file. Here is a link to the developer's Facebook page - you should be able to see it whether you are on FB or not, I think. If you can't, let me know and I'll look for another link.

I may have gotten it as some kind of promotion or something - I see the app is priced now at $2.99, so it's not free anymore. I apologize for the mistake. I'm not sure if it can be read or downloaded elsewhere - possibly. I'll keep looking.

I hope this helps!

 

[prodromos]

No Android version of the app

 

[Soma Seer]

I've heard the NASB is an excellent version. I'm definitely going to get one when I can afford it.

I've read that same opinion from a variety of online sources; as much as I tried to like the NASB, I found it's wording to be a bit dull--i.e., less poetic--than my two favorites, the ESV and RSV-CE. That all said, I can see why it's considered to be a very good translation; you likely wouldn't go wrong in choosing it.

 

[High Fidelity]

I've read that same opinion from a variety of online sources; as much as I tried to like the NASB, I found it's wording to be a bit dull--i.e., less poetic--than my two favorites, the ESV and NRSV. That all said, I can see why it's considered to be a very good translation; you likely wouldn't go wrong in choosing it.

Hello! I actually use the NASB as my primary version now. I found it reads very similarly to the ESV too.

 

[Soma Seer]

Hello! I actually use the NASB as my primary version now. I found it reads very similarly to the ESV too.

Why, hello!

I agree that the NASB reads very similarly to the ESV, as well as the RSV/NRSV. That's why I hard a hard time selecting my definite favorites between the three a few years ago.

Like others have said, I believe that the slight differences in wording do not, on the whole, make or break a Bible translation--i.e., that they don't make the Bible any less useful to the person studying a particular version. In fact, I think that the whole emphasis of the Bible is to teach us how to live its lessons, rather than get hung up on translations, interpretations, etc.

 

[MoreCoffee]

RSV, NASB, NRSV, and ESV are all second or third generation revisions of the KJV through the line established with the ASV so it is no wonder that they all read very similarly.