Tuesday, October 3, 2017

Bible Poll: Which Bible translation would you like to see most in a Catholic Edition?

Which Bible translation would you like to see most in a Catholic Edition?
King James Version 1769
Revised Version 1895
New International Version (Specify Edition in Comments)
New King James Version
New American Standard Version 1995
English Standard Version
Other
quotes 2 know

31 comments:

Devin said...

It would cool to see the NKJV in a Catholic edition and I voted as such for selfish reasons as The transcript of the NT and it translation style is a personal favorite. But we do have the Orthodox Study Bible which provides the additional deuterocanonical books, so realistically the NIV or ESV would probably be the translation that would be the most useful especially in ecumenical circles.

Erica said...

The HCSB or ESV. I think most evangelical Christians I know use one of these, and it would be great for evangelizing them.

Jason said...

My vote goes to the King James Version.

Imagine the Cambridge KJV paragraph Bible with Apocrypha.

Now imagine that except with the books arranged in canonical Catholic order, some good Catholic commentary (like that found in the ICSB or Didache), and stamped with the Imprimatur/Nihil Obstat.

Call it the KJ-CE (King James Catholic Edition Bible).

I would buy one in a heartbeat!

Paul W said...

Niv 2011

Anonymous said...

I’m with Jason. He took the words right out of my mouth!

Pax,
John

rolf said...

REB in a Catholic edition!

Anonymous said...

Seeing as all my memorized bible verses from my Protestant upbringing are NIV, I'd like to see one, but the OLD NIV only. Some of the new NIV is so changed as to not sound anything alike (seriously some of it is more similar in the NAB than the new NIV is!). (For that matter, I'd just be happy to find me a NIV journaling Bible (really just a wide margin - I don't want it for art!) that wasn't the new NIV. Even if it wasn't a Catholic edition!)

Steve Molitor said...

I voted ESV, but my second choice would be the NIV, preferably the older version.

These are two of the biggest and most influential contemporary Protestant translations. They're both solid translations. I have one Protestant acquaintance who shared that he reads the NIV, although has been told that he should be reading something like the ESV. ;) I suspect he's not alone. Between those two translations you'd really be able to dialogue with a lot of Protestants. Although the NLT is in the same ballpark as the NIV.

An ESV-CE excites me because, despite my quibbles with it, it is a modern, updated RSV, and the RSV is my favorite translation. I like that it is being carried forward.

Jason said...

Doesn't an ESV-CE essentially already exist in the RSV-2CE?

Jason said...

I feel we are already overwhelmed with English Catholic bibles that use modern English.

That's part of the reason I'd like to see a KJ-CE.

Timothy said...

Not really. The RSV-2CE is a lightly edited (I say cherry-picked) revision of the RSV done by unknown revisers. The ESV was a full revision of the RSV done by known scholars.

Jerry Mc Kenna said...

I would like either the Revised Version or the King James in a Catholic version.

Johnny Mecillas said...

I also went with the KJV, I'm in Alabama and most of the Protestants around here use it and quite a few are KJVOnliests so this would be most helpful for me to witness with

Bob said...

Another vote for the REB.

Great translation which has been nearly totally forgotten.

Cathryn said...

I'm with Steve. NIV and ESV. I prefer the ESV for my work, but I think the NIV would be great simply because it would provide good places to reach out to friends for whom that is THE translation. And hey - I've used it to! Just not for some books where I needed it most.

Matthew Doe said...

Can you please change "New American Standard Version" to its commonly used name "New American Standard Bible", and remove the 1995 specifier?

Because I would like to vote for the NASB (not NASV?!) and I would like the CE to be based on the upcoming 2018 revision.

(KJV would be second, ESV third.)

Jonny said...

I got to looking at my copy of "A Textual History of the King James Bible" by David Norton, the editor of the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible. It had been a while since I read this book, and I wanted to share some of the details. Norton's revision actually attempts to present the 1611 version, apart from changes made intentionally and inintintially by editors over the years. Most KJV Bibles have the 1769 edition as their basis and are presented through the lens of 1769 English spelling and punctuation.

This whole issue of textual variants and the history of the text is too complicated for me to want to explain in a comment here. My point is that Norton attempts to present the text as the 1611 translators would want it to appear to people today. That includes a lot of updates to spelling and punctuation. There is a list of several hundred words that are updated. Here is a small sample.

Arrogancy - arrogance
Baken - baked
Broided - braided
Clave - cleft
Drave - drove
Ensample - example
Fats - vats
Graff - graft
Holpen - helped
Intituling - entitling
Justle - jostle
Lien - lain
Marishes - marshes
Outmost - utmost
Pilled - peeled
Rereward - rearward
Ribband - ribbon
Serjeants - sergeants
Shew - show
Sith - since
Spue - spew
Strake - struck
Table - tablet
Uncorrupt - incorrupt
Vail - veil
Wringed - wrung

This is just a small sample, but I think enough to suggest if there was a "KJV-CE," perhaps the NCPB might be the best text to use? The words "King James" wouldn't even need to be in the title: "NCPB-CE." But what are the chances that Cambridge would publish such a thing...?

Biblical Catholic said...

The NIV is an incredibly biased translation that would be difficult to make into a Catholic Edition without practically revising every single verse.

Thomas said...

I would love to see a catholic septuagent translation coupled with the confraternity new testament.

Evergreen Dissident said...

Not that it would ever happen because there is such a small user base for the translation, but I would very much like to see a Catholic edition of the Revised English Bible. On only a slightly more realistic note, I think that a translation that is in the public domain might work better for producing a Catholic edition, so I would like to propose another great but little known modern translation, the predecessor of both the RSV and the NASB: the American Standard Version. I used to have an edition of the ASV New Testament, and I found the translation to be wonderful to read, with the magnificent cadences of the KJV largely intact.

Anonymous said...

I like to see the KJV-CE (with an imprimatur), being a collaboration by the CofE and the Catholic Church in England and Wales, and the NIV-CE based on the NIV 2011 in the future.

Luke said...

Evergreen -

A Catholic ASV essentially exists in the new Bibliotecha with apocrypha.

Evergreen Dissident said...

True, but it is a little spendy -- $200 for an entire Bible, and that in multiple bound volumes. Also, the addition of the deuterocanonical books is only part of the "Catholic updating" that would need to happen with the ASV. The use of "Jehovah" for the Divine Name would need to be changed, and other verses would likely need to be updated as well to conform to Catholic usage. But, it is great to see the ASV getting some new life -- it really is a great translation.

Jeff S. said...

Bibliotheca does NOT have Jehovah.

https://ideasaldente.wordpress.com/2017/04/22/the-bibliotheca-bible-a-short-review/
"Some final notes: The original ASV is one of the few Bibles to transliterate the Tetragrammaton in the Hebrew Old Testament. That is, the covenant name God revealed to Moses―Jehovah, or Yahweh. The ASV uses “Jehovah.” Most English Bibles, including the KJV, follow the practice of the Greek Septuagint (LXX) and use “Lord” (often in small caps) wherever the Tetragrammaton occurs, as did the Apostles in authoring the New Testament under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit. (The Tetragrammaton does not appear in the Greek New Testament at all, even in quotations from the Old Testament from passages that include it―since the Apostles quoted the Old Testament out of the LXX.) There is some controversy as to which practice is better. Bibliotheca, an update of the ASV, employs “YHWH” in small caps. This looks very nice. I think it was better than retaining the ASV’s “Jehovah” since there is even more controversy about whether we should use that particular pronunciation. This in fact leaves the reader to choose a pronunciation or not to pronounce it all (since four consonants are not pronounceable without the reader’s express and personal addition of some vowel sounds, at least mentally). Finally, be it known that Bibliotheca prints the words of Christ in black, just like all the other words … as should all Bibles."

Jeff S. said...

A very nice favorable review of Bibliotheca:

https://www.bibledesignblog.com/blog/2017/6/7/bibliotheca-mon-amour

By the way, the earlier review referred to in my earlier post
got something wrong ... Bibliotheca uses "YHWH" and not "yhwh"
And of course it does NOT use "Jehovah".

I just noticed that it "revised" Isaiah 7:14 to be
"Behold, a maiden shall conceive ..."

It's physically beautiful and I just may have to make the time to
read it straight through over the course of a month or so.

Jeff S. said...

P.S.
I made a mistake in my comment regarding "YHWH" vs. "yhwh".
The website I was quoting actually did say it correctly; I just
literally misread it:
"Bibliotheca, an update of the ASV, employs “YHWH” in small caps."

And looking closely at the text, it does appear that the capital letters of "YHWH" are clearly smaller than nearby capital letters,
and are in fact, seemingly the same size as the lower-case letters
in the surrounding text.(minutely taller!)

For example, when I type the following phrase:
"For YHWH of hosts has purposed," you'll see that YHWH is as
tall as the capital "F" and the tall "h".

But when you look at one of the pictures in the bibledesignblog
website, you'll see that the YHWH actually is as mentioned in my
first sentence at the top of this particular post.

That's an amazing attention to detail.

The one thing I don't like about it, and it's really the only thing,
is that if you were to want to look up a particular passage, it would
take some time given that there are literally NO chapter numbers and
NO verse numbers. And even the Psalms are NOT numbered.

But if one is READING it to READ it, I think it's pretty cool.
The one thing I think would have kept as great for READING
but made it a little better is to have slipped in an unobtrusive
Psalm number, and perhaps chapter numbers, but NOT verse numbers.

But that's nitpicking, and I'm sure that the decision was not made
lightly.


Eric Barczak said...

Honestly, I think we have enough great Catholic Bibles already. We have formal through dynamic translations; we have archaic to hyper-modern language; we have great study editions and reading editions. We don’t need to go hustling for another Catholic edition of a Protestant translation. If a publisher wants do one that’s great, but frankly I don’t see the need.

I think our efforts would bear much more fruit if we instead focused on getting people to read the ones we already have out there.

Timothy said...

Amen to that!

Anonymous said...

Personally, none of these translations are appealing to me. I’d rather see more premium editions of the existing Catholic translations be made available.

Michael P.

Dan said...

I'd like to see the NKJV or CSB with a Catholic version, especially a good Study Bible version.

Michael Wallace said...

I have a NKJV with Apocrypha. The Apocrypha is from the kJV and is quite jarring moving between the more modern NKJV and old KJV if switching between it and a standard-66 book.

I voted for NKJV.