Posted 09 September 2002 - 09:37 AM
Thank you for your further comments on the NRSV. You are quite right in bringing up as an example Psalm 1, which (to my own mind) is one of the most poorly translated texts in that entire edition. You are also right to bring up your priest's comments against the NRSV: despite the fact that a good portion of the OCA, for example, embraces it (when in the States at OCA parishes, I have heard the NRSV in use several times), other portions do not. It is not, as far as I know, a uniform standard.
Choosing a text to use as 'the' translation for a Church/jurisdiction is difficult, primarily for the fact that all translations have some weaknessess (this is just a part of translation); and also because the vast majority of Scriptural translations in English have been carried out without any manner of substantial Orthodox influence -- thus certain non- or even anti-Orthodox bias is bound to be somewhere therein. There is not a 'perfect' translation in English, as far as the Church is concerned (hence the reason, for example, that ecclesiastical doctrinal considerations are always based on the original source languages); and thus the task becomes choosing an 'acceptible version'. To this end, there are often different ends adopted for different situations: I have known dioceses to use one version (e.g. the NKJV) for liturgical use, and recommend another (NRSV) for in-depth, non liturgical study -- a very decent configuration, since the NKJV preserves much of the reverential language that is desired in liturgical proclamation, while the NRSV presents a more accurate text though lacks certain qualities that one desires in the temple proclamations. I have encountered other parishes, as well, which --with episcopal approval-- have taken on a given edition (e.g. the NRSV) for their liturgical use, but have gone through and changed certain terms here and there to conform to translations used in various Orthodox liturgical books. Thus the NRSV might be used, but Psalm 1 will be pencilled over with corrections. This is another very legitimate approach, given that it is done carefully and under the direct supervision of a qualified bishop.
Through it all, the best advise for most people is to use whatever version is recommended and employed by their parish, such that there is continuity between the Scripture heard in Church and that read at home. For those who have the time, it is exceptionally valuable to supplement this 'main version' with another of a very different flavour (thus if one's parish uses the KJV or NKJV, purchase also a copy of the NRSV; or vice-versa) -- for this allows one to encounter the differences among English translations, and thus begin to see for oneself the variance that often comes from such things. Recognition of the Church's teaching of the interpretation to be had of Scripture is thus especially appreciated.
Posted 09 September 2002 - 11:30 AM
There is a bible version that I have used to great benefit as a past "recovering fundemental protestant" that I would like to share.
It is the "Douay-Rheims" version. I know this is the version used by the RC (until Vatican 2), for hundreds of years, and some of the study notes have a papal bent to be sure, however it is the translation of the Latin Vulgate that St. Jerome conducted from the original great texts.
I have been told for this reason it is the most "accurate" translation into English.
I would welcome comments - I have also found the Orthodox Study Bible (OSB) to be invaluable.
Posted 12 October 2002 - 03:27 PM
Your question can best be answered, I believe, by the V.Rev.Fr. Jack Sparks, Phd. Dean of the St. Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology, and the Project Director for the Orhtodox Study Bible: old Testament Project. When complete it will incorporate (with revisions) the already published Orthodox New Testament w/notes. Contact Fr. Sparks at www.saaot.edu. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
It may not suit everyones tastes, but it should be a whole lot better than nearly everything else offered.
Posted 25 February 2003 - 01:11 AM
Beyong that, there maybe some perception that the NKJV uses the Majority Text, or so-called "Received Text" (I don't think it does)as the KJV does.
The Orthodox Study Bible, pretty much engineered by the old Evangelical Orthodox (Now part of the Antiochian Archdiocese)chose that version of the NT and Pss.
Holy Apostles Convent and Dormition Skete of Buena Vista Colorado has an excellent translation of The Holy Gospels and The Acts and Epistles(2 Volumes)which uses a text almost identical to the one used by the Greek Church(i.e., the Antoniades edition published by the Holy Synod at Constantinople)on the rare occassion they very, they say so.
That, and this is perhaps more than you wanted to know, but, their website can be found at http://www.BuenaVistaCO.com/GOC
and their e-mail is email@example.com
And finally, there is a project in the works to translate the OT of the LXX.
Posted 25 November 2003 - 02:30 AM
I do not usually suggest it for others.
Posted 25 November 2003 - 09:51 AM
Dear Father Averky, you wrote:
Does anyone have an opinion concerning the NIV, or more recently, the TNIV. I use it personally, but have to mentally change words which have been altered in some way. I use it because it is quite readable.
With the TNIV I am not familiar, but perhaps I might offer a few thoughts on the NIV. As you are most likely aware, this has become the de facto standard translation for much of the Protestant/Evangelical tradition in the USA, though it has never caught on quite so widely here in the UK.
The NIV is eminently 'readable', and thus its widespread popularity overall. It is the case that most people can sit before the NIV text, or hear it read aloud, and 'understand' what is read; and the text is of such a sort that it is accessible for young people as well as adults. In this latter regard it is particularly notable, given that many of the chief English translations of the past have been either entirely inaccessible to young people (e.g. the KJV, RSV), or have been aimed specifically at young people and thus left adults dry (e.g. the Childrens' Bible). The NIV seems to bridge this gap.
This, however, leads to one of the translation's main problems. Such a focus on 'understandability' and accessibility has led the translators to what must be called 'interpretation' in some of their 'translation', and the expositional method that lies much more pronouncedly behind the so-called 'Good News Bible' (which is a paraphrase or 'amplification', rather than a translation) is also found in the NIV. This is a trait which is much more immediately noticeable to readers who know Greek, where the liberties taken by the NIV translators become more apparent.
A qualification should be made here: the fact that 'bone literal' translation gives way to 'interpreted translation' here and there is not itself a fault -- all translations do this, as well they should, since it is simply not possible always to translate word-for-word and maintain the genuine meaning of a text. It all comes down to the manner and freedom of such interpretive interpolation. One of the great strengths of the NRSV, which is a translation with many problems of its own, is that it makes efforts to identify when it includes interpolations or changes for clarity (we may wish that it did not include some of these; but at least it identifies when and where it does). This is by and large not the case with the NIV, which takes as a basic methodological approach such an interpretive style, and thus does not identify strict translation from intentional interpolation/modification.
My own personal thought, for what it is worth, is that the NIV can be useful when read with caution and an eye towards the above. Especially when one is working with young people, it can be a very helpful tool. But for serious study or contemplation of the Scriptures, it is not the best edition.
Posted 24 January 2007 - 09:06 AM
KJV, NKJV, Revised Standard Version, NRSV, Amplified Bible, New Living Translation, Holman Christian Standard Bible, Today's English Version, New American Bible, Douay-Rheims Version, Jerusalem Bible, New International Version (arguably the most popular among U.S. Protestants).
The list could probably go on, but those are the ones I know of. I own a King James, Douay-Rheims (actually, this one was hard to find), Oxford Annotated Bible (RSV), NRSV, plus an NIV and NKJV New Testament. I know my hierarch (Met. Isaiah of Denver) upholds the KJV, and dislikes both the RSV and NRSV, as well as the NIV.
I think that an Orthodox Bible printed in one volume (not in 2, 3, or more) would be quite helpful.
Posted 24 January 2007 - 03:58 PM
In fact putting aside my rather sniffy attitude to anything likely to be popular I actually found it very useful for myself because the text came alive. I would not use it often myself, but maybe that is the value of having several versions, we can then use the ones that are appropriate in different circumstances.
I used to read a version of the Gospels that was only separated into Chapters and not verses, and that was also instructive because it changed my relationship with the text from one with individual verses to a whole passage.
Posted 24 January 2007 - 04:06 PM
I'm wondering if you read back through the nearly 50 entries on this topic yet. I think there is a lot there that will help answer your question about the various pro's and con's of various translations.
There seems to be a consensus among the English speaking Church in North America to use the KJV or NKJV for public reading (there is a really nice entry in this thread by Mr Dunn on the auditory aspect of the KJV). For the OT, pending the release of the Antiochian Archdiocese translation of the Septuagint (in the linguistic style of the NKJV), I think the Douay-Rhiems provides the closest available readable English text of the OT.
In having skimmed through the thread, I would like to ask Matthew (and all the other Greek scholars) a question about the Greek texts of the NT. You asserted that the Received Text was actually inferior to the other major Greek texts in use today (which for most English translations means the Nestle/Aland text). Do you still hold that position? I realize that the Received text is not the same as that used in the Greek Church today however I have always thought that the Received was closer to it than the Nestle? I am more than willing to change my perception here, but I would like a little clarification. Also, from a textual pov, do you have an opinion on the Dormition Skete translation of the NT? The readability is difficult, but how is M. Miriam for accuracy? Although I was unable to find anything specifically stating which text she used, I suspect it is the 1904 Antoniades. For someone ignorant in Greek, like me, how does Antoniades compare with Nestle?
Enough for now, perhaps I will have more questions later.
Fr David Moser
Posted 24 January 2007 - 05:17 PM
My spiritual father had me purchase the NT on cassette, KJV read by Alexander Scourby. Hearing the scriptures on tape really makes them come alive.
A monastic community I made contact with recently uses the Coverdale Psalter in its services.
I guess any Bible, even if corrupted in ways, is better than nothing, so long as it isn't the New World Translation!!! (I actually bought one at a rummage sale years ago, not realizing who published it. I think I destroyed it when I found out.)
Met. Isaiah's article about Bible translations:
Another Orthodox Bible link:
A comparison of translations by a Protestant minister:
Posted 25 January 2007 - 12:05 AM
The D.R. is one of my favorite translations. I've read most every major English translation and none of them speak to me the same way as the D.R. and I use it for my daily readings.
I was thinking some Orthodox might shun the D-R Bible as a "Papist" translation, but the Vulgate is of course older than the Schism.
Posted 07 December 2010 - 09:50 PM
Here's a link to its website:
Thank you for any advice you can provide.
Posted 08 December 2010 - 03:45 AM
I have many Bibles to choose from, and i've had enough of having to think about which Bible translation I think I should read. Its driving me nuts. You can't memorize the Bible without using a main translation.
But the #1 reason why I chose it is because I have a KJV Audio-Bible which helps me to memorize it. Secondly: I like the old english language. Thirdly: the translation is just classic. Fourthly: the Deuterocanonical books are there, especially the Wisdom of Sirach. Fifthly: Its really simple to read.
Because, "So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Romans 10:17)
Audio Bibles are great. I have over 4 on my Computer, and on my mp3 player I have some.
This guys voice really invigorates the New Testament: http://www.audiotrea...m/KJV/index.htm
Thats the New Testament, I found the entire audio-bible here:
If you know how to download torrent files.
Posted 08 December 2010 - 03:58 AM
In his new series of talks, "How To Read The Bible" he tells us that he really recommends it, here:
And, "The Old Testament" http://ancientfaith....e_old_testament
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users