Which Version Would You Prefer?

[Knight of the Holy Rosary]

I was asked this by a friend and thought it would be interesting to hear the Pham's opinion.

Douay-Rheims all the way for me.

I can't find the original though

[son_of_angels]

For personal use, I prefer the Douai Rheims (because of its close adherence to the Latin) and the Revised Standard Version-CE. I also enjoy using the New Jerusalem Bible.

However, for the Liturgy of the Word, or for public biblical reading in general, I have always believed that the New Revised Standard Version is one of the best out there. This is a version familiar to Catholics and Non-Catholics alike, approved at various times by the Church, and capable of reaching out to larger groups of people. It is also the scholarly version of choice, which would make it even more timely.

[Knight of the Holy Rosary]

Does the NRSV contain inclusive language?

[son_of_angels]

Generally speaking, yes, but not in reference to God. It also makes some translation mistakes, in my opinion.

[Knight of the Holy Rosary]

Like what?

[cmotherofpirl]

For personal use I have the New English Bible brought back from London.
I love the translation.
Unfortunately its so old that not only is the cover gone, but most of Revelations fell off as well.

[Knight of the Holy Rosary]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1156724' date='Jan 5 2007, 03:02 PM']
For personal use I have the New English Bible brought back from London.
I love the translation.
Unfortunately its so old that not only is the cover gone, but most of Revelations fell off as well.
[/quote]

We win at the end.

[cmotherofpirl]

[heavenseeker]

new american but only because thats the only one i knew exactly what it was, chances are i actualy like one of the others better.

[goldenchild17]

Either Douay version for the Liturgy and the RSV-CE for personal reading. Any Douay Version, RSV-CE, or the original Jerusalem Bible are a million times better than NAB.

[Knight of the Holy Rosary]

I don't particularly care for the NAB myself. As I said before I read the DR (Challoner) and when I listen to the readings at Mass and compare the two....Well, the DR blows the doors off of the NAB. The DR contains such eloquence and poeticism I can't read anything else. But that's just me.

I like the commentary better too....

[Piamaria]

I like the New English Bible for personal use, also the Jerusalem and Oxford Annotated for studying.

[Resurrexi]

For the Mass of the Catechumans, I think the RSVCE would be the best so that those who cannot understand the archaic language in the DR would be able to know what was being read.

For personal use, I like to use both the Douay-Rheims (Challoner, becuase that's the one that's most readily available and the one which I am most acquainted with, and for the commentary) and the RSVCE (So I can get a good translation of the original languages and the more modern language)

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Pia' post='1157580' date='Jan 6 2007, 03:30 PM']
I like the New English Bible for personal use, also the Jerusalem and Oxford Annotated for studying.
[/quote]
Where did you get your New English Bible at?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Are those who have problems with the NAB translation opposed to the lectionary version too? It is a modified version that made some changes in order to be approved for use in the liturgy.

[Akalyte]

ill stick with the Douay!

[angelusdomini]

[quote name='thedude' post='1157638' date='Jan 6 2007, 05:23 PM']
Are those who have problems with the NAB translation opposed to the lectionary version too? It is a modified version that made some changes in order to be approved for use in the liturgy.
[/quote]

Personally, I'm actually not quite sure which translation I would prefer for public reading i.e. Liturgy only because there a few considerations to be made. One being that the liturgy is a public worship and thus open and the treasure of all the faithful i.e. those who speak the biblical languages and those who don't; those familiar with ancient English and those not etc. That having being said however, there are some difficulties with the NAB some of which include some of their footnotes which make it problematic for a deeper devotional use of the bible. The version of the readings used in the lectionary display some significant changes particularly in the psalms and parts of the gospels. These changes have harmonised the readings with the Tradition of the church- as far as I can tell. I believe this is satisfactory,however I have to ask why the church should settle for satisfactory and not strive for the best particularly when there are better translations available which have a longer and venerable history within the liturgical life of the Church e.g. The Douay- Rheims.
I would say also that I think continuity is a great friend of the church and she should foster this in the faithful as far as this is possible. Now if anyone of the faithful were to pick up the NAB for private devotional use expecting to read what he hears during the mass, he might be in for a few disturbing surprises. I suppose it might be better if they were to come up with a cohesive yet satisfactory translation for both private and public use. If it is 'Hail, full of grace,' (Lk1:26) let it be so both in the bible and the lectionary or ps 100 for that matter.
Anyway, there is a thread in Transmundane which deals with the NAB quite well IMHO. They probably treat this better than I do.

Pax et bonum. AMDG