Which version of the scriptures to use?

[Olympiada]

Happy Saint Valentine's Day everyone.
At home I only have three full Bibles: NRSV, NIV, and New Catholic Edition. My retired bishop disapproves of the NRSV quite strongly and has written a letter of instruction not to use it. Does the group have a recommendation as between the other two? I am thinking the New Catholic Edition. I have KJV New Testament.
Olympiada

[John Charmley]

Happy Saint Valentine's Day everyone.
At home I only have three full Bibles: NRSV, NIV, and New Catholic Edition. My retired bishop disapproves of the NRSV quite strongly and has written a letter of instruction not to use it. Does the group have a recommendation as between the other two? I am thinking the New Catholic Edition. I have KJV New Testament.
Olympiada

Dear Olympiada,

And a happy Valentine's day to you - and a wish that the troubles you mention on another thread subside; peace and calm be with you.

Not, of course, that you're likely to get much of either with this question, which has come up before in various guises, when there seemed to be as many answers as posters!

Your instruction from your retired bishop helps with the answer for your own case. I know there are many views on the Orthodox Study Bible, which is RKJV, but I find it very useful to have some Orthodox commentaries there to hand. It is the version I prefer, but for the OT leaves much to be desired in the existing versions; there is an Orthodox OT on the way, which looks excellent in prospect.

I am not going to risk the wrath of others by infringing everyone's prerogative to have a strongly-held view on this one; but am going to sit back and enjoy the enlightenment that will come from our friends on Monachos.

In Christ,

John

[Kris]

I'm not familiar with the New Catholic Edition, but I would suspect it is superior to the NIV and NRSV.

I suppose the RSV (not NRSV) would be your best bet for a full Bible, since its available with the complete canon. However, it is mostly translated from the Hebrew, not the Greek.

At present the only English translation of the LXX available (to my knowledge) is the Lancelot Brenton edition. Its far from perfect, but its the only one there is.

Both the complete RSV and the Brenton LXX are available online.

For the NT I'd recommend the Orthodox New Testament.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

Perhaps it would be helpful to take advantage of the extensive discussions on this question that have already been held here, which are available in the same section as the present thread. Two particular threads spring immediately to mind, both of which are several pages long:



Bible Translations (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2124)
Church Translations of the Bible (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2101)


INXC, Matthew

[Bob Kovacs]

Allot of people like the Orthodox Study Bible (NKJV). But technically it is only part of the Bible. New Testament and Psalms. You may be better off getting the full New King James Version Bible both Old and New Testaments until the full Orthodox Study Bible is released. It may not have the full canon of scriptures, but it will get you started reading the core Old Testament books. Along with the teachings of the church, you can't go wrong. I have both the Haydock Study Bible which is a Roman Catholic edition of the Douay-Rheims, along with the Oxford Annotated RSV edition. (not NRSV!). Hope this helps. May get the NKJV myself.

[Rick H.]

Dear All,

I would like to share that the subject of the translation and transmission of the Holy Scriptures is one that is very near to my heart. And, when one undertakes a consideration of such a question as which version[?], especially in my neck of the woods, this can become a very emotionally charged issue with great speed. I usually try to avoid those types of conversations. And, as well, if a more scholarly approach is taken, there are different routes available, but in the end, the conversation usually moves to an acknowledgment on all sides that we do not have the original autographs. From there, the conversation will usually move to our old friend here on monachos, "The question of authority." But, then we have left the original question of bibliology and moved into others areas of consideration and the original question is long lost. So then where does that leave us?

I would like to suggest this morning that from my point of view, the wrong question is being asked here. Or, in other words, if one really wants to get down to business with this . . . the question about which version is the "best" ('to use'/for application) is to be answered by the question, Which Verse? . . . because, 'that depends on which verse you are speaking about.' In my opinion, there are some verses in some versions, that do a better job than others, as well as some versions that just downright "blow it" grammatically with no manuscripts to back up the tenses being used--and in turn the meaning that is derived (short of using the dreaded metaphysical hermeneutic :(

And, when I say the answer to the question Which Version? is to be answered, 'Well, that depends on which verse you are talking about!' My ears start to burn a little bit, as I can hear some thinking, Oh, yes, there goes that ex-neo-evangelical with his protestant ways of manipulating Scripture to say what ever pleases him at the time, or something to that effect. But, that would be an ignorant statement/charge, firstly, because you do not know me, and secondly, because the same thing can easily be said about the way 'we' Orthodox use our patristic/monastic source documents everyday--there are many many examples of this here for that matter. But, this is another conversation that I usually try to avoid if at all possible.

It is so easy to discredit and tear things down isn't it? Especially, if they do not fully support one's way of knowing, doing, or feeling. This is an old Fundamentalist trick (with an upper case 'F'), regardless of which religion you may wish to examine. One really needs to speak in a more specific way if one wants to make a specific point. But, this requires one to know what one is talking about. Sometimes, generalizing is much easier because you do not have to support anything that you are saying, and in this sense you truly can say what ever you want, unless, of course, there is someone around that knows something about what is being said (which could kind of throw a monkey wrench into things). Generalizing about things like "the Protestants" or "the Orthodox" and "their apologetics" or "their hermeneutics" or "their bibliology or their bibliolatry," or "their patristicology or their patristicolatry" is really very unhelpful, and at the end of the day, it is really just a big bunch of nothin' isn't it?

It's 4:30 AM now, and I am realizing that I might have woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning as I re-read that last paragraph. But, it is accurate, so I will let it stand (as I move towards the coffee pot which has just finished doing its thing). I said good bye to my priest yesterday, he is heading to Buffalo now. Possibly, I am not entirely happy with this development. Our loss is Buffalo's gain. Any monachos members who live in Buffalo, NY, you should be very grateful to have Fr. Christos and his beautiful family coming your way. This Sunday my priest will be doing his first liturgy there. I hope that you treat him very well, he is such a blessing. He is deserving of much honor and respect and love. Our church did not deserve him. Somehow, the expression in the end the beginning does not sound as good to me at the present as it has in the past.

But, anyway, what do I mean about generalizing as opposed to being specific in such discussions as this--Which Version? And, why do I say this is entirely the wrong question to begin with? There are more than a few educators and academics (as well as students!) here on this site who will hopefully agree with me that it does not take a highly trained or very intelligent teacher/professor to design a test/examination that nobody can pass or score very well on does it? Questions can be crafted in such a way or questions can be asked about material that was not covered. And, in a similar way when we examine the subject of the translation and the transmission of the Holy Scriptures it does not take a genus to call into question any version when one speaks in a general way. But, to attempt to get back to the point here, on the other hand, I am implying that some versions may be better than other versions, depending on which verse one may want to consider so what exactly am I saying?

What I am saying is that to generalize about such things only adds to the confusion about the matter. I would say that less than 1% of professing Christians have any knowledge at all about the translation and transmission of the Holy Scriptures other than what they were told by someone else who was probably generalizing about the matter. And, we are not talking about the canonization of the Scripture here. So professing Christians *know* what they *know* because, this is what they were told. And, in an effort to be more specific here so that I am not guilty of the above myself, I will pick what seems to be the most accepted version in my area which is the Orthodox Study Bible (NT) which is the New King James Version (NKJV). I laughed when I was handed a copy of this approved 'version' because I am familiar with some of the translators/editors. In fact, I know one of the main editors and translators of the NKJ version very well, he was my first Greek Langauge teacher, and lives nearby. He is Reformed/Highly Calvinistic and considers Orthodoxy to be an apostate organization and its members to be apostate. So, take this 'version' as an example. Maybe you see what I am getting at here. Maybe you don't. So, I will submit that the question, "Which Version?" is a question that is often times asked very honestly by people who really do want to know . . . but it is also a question that is often times answered by those who are ill-trained and ill-qualified to really render a competent answer (and which is usually based on politics or hobby horses more than anything else). So, while my answer to your question may possibly not seem pleasing on the surface, I hope that it is not dismissed.

Which version? That depends of the verse.

In Christ,
Rick

Truth leading reason

[Herman Blaydoe]

This is, of course, an issue of great importance to the Protestants, but not so much, I believe for us. In as much as the Protestants are bereft of Holy Tradition to guide them, having nothing but "THE BIBLE" from which to "divine" their Faith, a "correct" translation is, of course, paramount. Otherwise, how do they know that they didn't get it wrong due to a mistranslation? They go so far as to translate the KJV into Greek and Russian so that they can "share" the Gospel! Talk about taking coals to Newcastle! But we have Holy Tradition and the rich tapestry of Divine services which cmpare and contrast the Old and New Testaments, which expound at length on the intricacies and nuances of Holy Scripture, not to mention the extensive writings of the Holy Fathers, even though they never had the "advantage" of having a copy of the KJV!

Personally, I have several versions, and I enjoy using the Bible Gateway (http://www.biblegateway.com/) to compare different versions at the same time. Some versions are perhaps better than others, but as long as we lean on the Holy Church, I don't think it matters all that much.

FWIW

[Alex Haig]

I agree with Herman, the important thing is that we're in the Church: 'the pillar and foundation of the truth' (1 Timothy 3.15). The Bible exists within the Church, not the other way around.

Remember too, that people should be able to 'read' the Gospel by observing how those in the Church live: we should exemplify Christ's teachings in our daily lives.

Ax

[Bob Kovacs]

1.Haydock two volume Douay-Rheims (Traditional. Best Roman Catholic translation IMO) (Soft Cover)
2.Oxford Annotated RSV w/Deuterocanonicals (Most complete Bible to date. Includes the complete canon of the Orthodox Church, 3&4 Maccabees, etc...) (Leather).
3.Ignatius RSV-SCE (Deuterocanonicals placed in the OT properly, new revision of the RSV-CE, more modern style language used, over original RSV. Best modern Roman Catholic translation IMO) (Hard Cover)
4.NKJV and ESV through Bible Gateway.
(All Non-Inclusive Translations)

Versions I whole heartedly disapprove of. (All Inclusive Translations)
NAB
NRSV
Good News
NJB

[Rick H.]

Hi Bob,

Thanks for your posting here. And, I am wondering what the term "non-inclusive translation" means. I have never heard this before, and I would like to understand what is being said here please.

Thank you very much,

Rick

[Bob Kovacs]

"Non-Inclusive" basically means that the translation has not be altered to be gender-inclusive.
Here is a good article, Roman Catholic though about "Inclusive Language"
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CANONLAW/VIORIGHT.htm

[Rick H.]

Dear Bob,

Thanks for bringing me up to speed. That is a good article and helpful too.

In Christ,
Rick

[John Charmley]

Dear Bob,

We are in your debt for this article.

If Our Lord had meant to talk about 'God the Mother', He would have done so. The method adopted by those wanting an 'inclusive' version reminds me of what Irenaeus had to say when defending Orthodoxy from the Gnostic heresies.

He describes how the Apostles first preached the Gospel, which was, through the Holy Ghost, passed on in tradition through the Scriptures; he cites Sts. Matthew, Peter, Paul and John as the authorities behind the four Gospels (Against Heresies Book 3, chapter 1). The heretics, however, deny the authority of the scriptures and say that the truth cannot be discovered from them by anyone who is ignorant of the tradition, which was passed on, according to them (the Gnostics) orally. When, however, they are confronted with 'that tradition which comes from the Apostles and is preserved in the Churches through the succession of the priests', they start objecting and say that they know better than either Apostle or priest.

Irenaeus concludes: 'they won't agree with either the scriptures or the tradition.' )Against Heresies Book 3, chapter 2)

Later, he adds that 'even if the Apostles had not left us the Scriptures, ought we not to follow the line line of the tradition which they traditioned to the men to whom they committed the Churches?' He concludes that the heretics are pure innovators (Book 3, chapter 4).

So is it here. We know what the Church holds, which is what it has always held - that is what was 'traditioned' from Christ to the Apostles and through them to the Church. Those who find it not to their refined western twenty-first century palates are, of course, free to say so and to walk away; what they are not welcome to do is to try to use the arguments of liberal political correctness to try to force an innovation on the rest of us.

We are called to repent and to be more like Him; we are reshaped in His image; what some of these folk seem to want is for Him to be reshaped in their image; that is human pride, not Christian humility.

I spent most of my life in a Church (the Anglican Church) which sought to come alongside these issues in an eirenic way; but the eirenicism was one way; all the concessions came from the orthodox believers. It was a mark of the innovators that they expected such concessions; and, of course, no concession was ever enough. It was living through this process that convinced me that although there are many wonderful Christian people in the Anglican Church, and although it does much good in the world, it was not in the tradition passed on from Christ through the Apostles.

In Christ,

John