Which is the most accurate Catholic Bible?

[twosid]

I need to buy one and I don't have the money to be wrong. Can you please tell me which one is the most accurate to the original text? It doesn't have to be a study bible but if there is a good one in the correct format then please mention that as well. I've searched and read many threads here about this but haven't seen anything definitive. Most are more along the lines of "I like this one" etc. and that isn't of any help to me.

 

[dave90]

I use the New Jerusalem Bible, i really don't know whats the most accurate though, sorry.

 

[Fantine]

This website:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/romcath.html

discusses all the Roman Catholic Bibles. It talks about their translations, how literal they are, when they were first published, what languages they were translated from, etc.

At present, three translations are approved for Catholic liturgical use: the New Jerusalem, the RSV, and the New American Bible (NAB). The lectionaries and the several publishers of Mass guides, however, use only the NAB. It is, not to put too fine a point on it, a wretched translation. It succeeds in being, at the same time, loose, stilted, breezy, vulgar, opaque, and relentlessly averse to literary grace. The bishops had the NAB updated to the Revised New American Bible (RNAB), but Rome had objections to that and hurriedly appointed a committee to fix it up into what might be called the Amended Revised New American Bible (ARNAB), which will soon become mandatory in lectionary use. Technically, the RSV and New Jerusalem are still permitted but, with ARNAB as the mandatory translation of the future, nobody has any interest in printing lectionaries or Mass guides using those versions.

An objection to Douay-Rheims is that it was translated from the "authentic Latin" and recent Popes have wanted Bible translations from the original Greek and Hebrew documents.

The polemical character of the Rheims New Testament is advertised on its title page: "The New Testament of Jesus Christ translated faithfully into English, out of the authentical Latin, according to the best corrected copies of the same, diligently conferred with the Greek and other editions in divers languages.

 

[Ave Maria]

The RSV-CE Ignatius Bible is a really good one.

 

[ZooMom]

All Catholic Bibles are going to be equally accurate if they are approved and published by the Church. Can't go wrong. The language may vary a bit..formal or informal, and the commentary, footnotes, etc...but they are all 'right'.

Have you asked your priest or RCIA director for one? Alot of times the Church will provide you with one for free. And a Catechism.

 

[Foundthelight]

Even among the Protestant translations there is little real difference until you get to those which are updated for radically inclusive language, such as the TNIV. The same is true of the Catholic translations. The NAB is one of the worst, its notes border on outright error. The Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition is safely mainstream and accurate, basically a 1950's update of the KJV. The New Jerusalem has some of the issues with inclusive language that plague many new translations. It is a good read though!

All Douay-Rheims published today are of the Challoner revision. They read like the KJV in a great many cases.

If you love the KJV go with the Douay-Rheims. If you want a readable reasonably accurate translation go with the RSV-CE. I like the one put out by Ignatius Publishing. These are great for personal study.

The Missal has the text of the readings in the NAB version.

I study from the RSV-CE almost entirely.

Just my totally biased 2-cents worth.

In Christ,

Willis

 

[BillH]

The RSV-CE Ignatius Bible is a really good one.

My Biblical Theology professor in college claimed that this was probably the most literal translation to the most reliable ancient texts that they had, if that's what you're looking for.

 

[colleen]

My religion professor in college said the RSV is the most accurate to the original texts. I like the rsv-second catholic edition by Ignatius press. I also study from a women's study version of the NAB though I agree that it isn't as pleasant to read as the RSV. And, I also like the Navarre as it has the text in English, latin, and then extensive commentary from church documents and the Church fathers.

 

[Plutonius]

The RSV is simply glorious, it is my favorite bible version. There is a really good article on the translation of wikipedia.

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

 

[LostFound1986]

As a Biblical student, I would recommend the NASB as the most accurate to date.

 

[Plutonius]

As a Biblical student, I would recommend the NASB as the most accurate to date.

That is what I have heard, Im not a scholar so I really do not know.

 

[Foundthelight]

As a Biblical student, I would recommend the NASB as the most accurate to date.

Possibly, but is it available as a Catholic bible?

 

[twosid]

As a Biblical student, I would recommend the NASB as the most accurate to date.

I have several New American Standard Bibles if that's what you are talking about. It isn't Catholic. Many books were ripped out during the Protestant Reformation rendering it in my opinion to be very misleading and supportive of a movement that leads people away from the original and true Church.

 

[Plutonius]

I find the only difference between the RSV and RSV Catholic version are the additional of the apocrypha and some minor changes (Such as change from young women to virgin in the prophecy of the birth of the messiah). Other then that, they are basically the same. I have a Catholic NAB bible and several other protestant bibles. I enjoy them both, they are good translations (NAB has some gender inclusive things I don`t like ).

I'm not sure if the NASB has a Catholic edition.

Also, how exactly do these Protestant bibles lead people away from the "One True Church"? Just wondering, no offense.The Apocrypha has nothing to do with the current doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[LostFound1986]

That's a point actually, its lacking the deuterocanonicals. Its a very good translation though. In terms of translation, you don't get 'catholic' and 'protestant' in the worthwhile ones; the Bible says what it says. What you want then is the New Revised Standard Version: Catholic Edition. That is a brilliant, modern and practically flawless translation, textually. The one change they make to the text is sometimes change a gender specific word to an inclusive one.

I study the Bible academically using the NRSV; but I actually READ my New Jerusalem Bible. The Standard Edition has tons and tons of footnotes explaining so much, and is a catholic Bible. Its more nicely written than the NRSV, and only slightly less accurate; it does however keep most of the gender specific pronouns. Bible scholarship is carried out so intensly that any unbiased translation these days is a pretty good rendering of the original,

Here's some examples of good, reputable, translations. Only the NJB is a 'catholic' Bible in that it was created by a team of catholic scholars. As I said, translations will make theological interpretations sometimes, but this is largely untrue of these ones. They are scholarly, mostly not written by religious people, but they will tell you what the text actually says; which is I'm sure what we all want.

New Revised Standard Version (Catholic layout available)

Revised Standard Version (Catholic layout available)

New American Standard Version

New Jerusalem Bible (Catholic layout, Standard Edition highly Recommended for devotional reading)

New English Bible (Catholic layout available)


Those are complete Bibles written for a variety of uses, but not really intense linguistic study. PM me for suggestions of even more highly indepth specialised translations of portions of the Bible.

Below are some Bibles that are not very literal in their writing. They may well be written well and easy to read, but just to let you know there is bias:

New King James Version :
I really don't like this, I'm sorry! The King James Version is a beautiful work of English literature, utterly wonderful. This version updates the outdated words, but the form will be familiar. In a word: why?! There are better manuscripts now, far better translation techniques, I don't see why we should mock that lovely old book by dressing it up in modern language and suggesting it is problem free, still each to their own!

The Living Bible:
To let you know in case you didn't, this is a nice paraphrase version of the Bible, very easy to understand; Protestant in its outlook, suitable for some Christians, but not an accurate read and not meant to be.

New International Version:
The Bible I read since I was little! Very widespread and popular. It is quite Protestant leaning, though many Christians of all denominations read it. Ah, I have found cloudy translations in it but to be honest the main reason I stuck it here was that I don't like it! lol. It has an update, the TNIV.

Jerusalem Bible:
Interesting and good, but just to remind you it has a fabulous updated version.




Bottom Line:
For accuracy, clarity and execellent scholarship:
New Revised Standard Version: Catholic Edition

For a beautifully written and poetic text rivalling the NRSV in accuracy, and reams of Catholic notes; New Jerusalem Bible: Standard Edition

Phew!

 

[Plutonius]

That's a point actually, its lacking the deuterocanonicals. Its a very good translation though. In terms of translation, you don't get 'catholic' and 'protestant' in the worthwhile ones; the Bible says what it says. What you want then is the New Revised Standard Version: Catholic Edition. That is a brilliant, modern and practically flawless translation, textually. The one change they make to the text is sometimes change a gender specific word to an inclusive one.

I study the Bible academically using the NRSV; but I actually READ my New Jerusalem Bible. The Standard Edition has tons and tons of footnotes explaining so much, and is a catholic Bible. Its more nicely written than the NRSV, and only slightly less accurate; it does however keep most of the gender specific pronouns. Bible scholarship is carried out so intensly that any unbiased translation these days is a pretty good rendering of the original,

Here's some examples of good, reputable, translations. Only the NJB is a 'catholic' Bible in that it was created by a team of catholic scholars. As I said, translations will make theological interpretations sometimes, but this is largely untrue of these ones. They are scholarly, mostly not written by religious people, but they will tell you what the text actually says; which is I'm sure what we all want.

New Revised Standard Version (Catholic layout available)

Revised Standard Version (Catholic layout available)

New American Standard Version

New Jerusalem Bible (Catholic layout, Standard Edition highly Recommended for devotional reading)

New English Bible (Catholic layout available)


Those are complete Bibles written for a variety of uses, but not really intense linguistic study. PM me for suggestions of even more highly indepth specialised translations of portions of the Bible.

Below are some Bibles that are not very literal in their writing. They may well be written well and easy to read, but just to let you know there is bias:

New King James Version :
I really don't like this, I'm sorry! The King James Version is a beautiful work of English literature, utterly wonderful. This version updates the outdated words, but the form will be familiar. In a word: why?! There are better manuscripts now, far better translation techniques, I don't see why we should mock that lovely old book by dressing it up in modern language and suggesting it is problem free, still each to their own!

The Living Bible:
To let you know in case you didn't, this is a nice paraphrase version of the Bible, very easy to understand; Protestant in its outlook, suitable for some Christians, but not an accurate read and not meant to be.

New International Version:
The Bible I read since I was little! Very widespread and popular. It is quite Protestant leaning, though many Christians of all denominations read it. Ah, I have found cloudy translations in it but to be honest the main reason I stuck it here was that I don't like it! lol. It has an update, the TNIV.

Jerusalem Bible:
Interesting and good, but just to remind you it has a fabulous updated version.




Bottom Line:
For accuracy, clarity and execellent scholarship:
New Revised Standard Version: Catholic Edition

For a beautifully written and poetic text rivalling the NRSV in accuracy, and reams of Catholic notes; New Jerusalem Bible: Standard Edition

Phew!

So what exactly makes a Catholic Bible, Catholic?
Deuterocanonical books?
Catholic footnotes?
Translated by Catholics?
Just wondering.................

 

[LostFound1986]

Strictly that it includes the deuterocanoncial books prefferably in the traditional Catholic order. There is no sense it has to be translated by Catholics; its better if it isn't. That's why most of those I listed are written by scholars of ancient texts, not people with a religious bias. There must be no notion of anything being changed in anyone's favor, these texts have their own voice and must be heard clearly and objectively. By Catholic I strictly mean including the books a Protestant Bible probably wouldn't.

 

[Plutonius]

The King James translators also translated the deuterocanoncial, you can actually get one with the apocryphal books included. So some protestant bibles do include them. Of course these are probably not going to be mainline translations such as the NIV, the RSV (New Oxford Annotated ) includes such books. So, I would say all 'Catholic' bibles include the apocryphal but some, not many, 'Protestant' bibles include them.

Who honestly reads the apocrypa anyway? I personally have not read all of the old testament (I need to do this).

 

[LostFound1986]

I think the point is the Bible is the Bible. The Protestant Bible is not different for the Catholic Bible (excluding the fact that the Catholic canon includes the deuterocanonicals). What we need is the ancient text of the Bible translated objectively by professional scholars, not religious clergy, and thus have an appropriate basis from which to use the Biblical texts. I believe my recommendations fulfil the criteria.

And the dueterocanonicals are great, really! Tobit is so fun! and Macaabees is inspiring.

 

[Plutonius]

I have a Catholic Bible (NAB) , I will agree that they truly are inspiring. But the key is are they truly inspired by God? But that is a discussion/debate for another time.

Thanks for the reply,