-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Favourite Bible Translation
- Thread starter Rival
- Start date
In English, I like the King James and the Douay-Rheims versions. Mostly for aesthetic reasons.
Although Protestant, the King James is a masterpiece of Early Modern English. When I call to mind a Bible verse it is almost always in the King James rendering.
The Douay-Rheims reads similarly (although the language is more opaque) but it has the advantage of being composed by goodly Catholic scholars.
For a more modern translation I also enjoy the Knox Version by Monsignor Ronald Knox.
Although Protestant, the King James is a masterpiece of Early Modern English. When I call to mind a Bible verse it is almost always in the King James rendering.
The Douay-Rheims reads similarly (although the language is more opaque) but it has the advantage of being composed by goodly Catholic scholars.
For a more modern translation I also enjoy the Knox Version by Monsignor Ronald Knox.
Last edited:
I like the translation into Swedish a lot.
Why? Well, I believe that Swedish being my mother tongue might play some role in it.
The German one is also OK, if it had not been for the original author. But I tend to irrationally associate it to extra-linguistic reasons, since Luther was a ferocious antisemite. And I despise antisemites, in general..
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Of the Jewish translations, I prefer the Stone Tanakh. If I'm being lazy and using an online Bible, I link to Chabad's website (I'm not sure which translation they use).
Of the Christian translations (which I generally do not like) I think the New American Bible is the best. It's the authorized version of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. I like it because unlike virtually every other Christian translation, the NAB does not use the Septuagint, but translates directly from the Hebrew. The eliminates many of the well known mistranslations that other Christian Bibles have.
Every modern Bible since the King James uses the Masoretic text, so not sure what you're meaning here. I haven't found a single Bible that uses the LXX and have actually recently ordered a translation of it online. All modern Bibles translate directly from the Hebrew and Aramaic.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
It's been a long time since I looked into this, but I seem to recall that the KJV relied on three texts: the Masoretic, the LXX, and the Vulgate. This is why it is one of the worst translations out there.
Rival, virtually all Christiaan translations use both the Masoretic and the LXX. It is from the LXX that they get verses like "a virgin shall conceive" instead of "a young woman is pregnant" or "A band of evildoers has surrounded me. They pierced my hands and my feet" instead of " a band of evildoers has encompassed me, like a lion, my hands and feet." There are are several other instances where they opt for the Greek, but I can't recall what they are at this time.
The RSV has 'young woman', and that's a 1950s translation, but the LXX was translated by Jews who put 'parthenos' in there, so that's a Jewish issue.
The Christian Bibles use various sources to come up with the reading they think is most authentic owing to corroboration in various source materials. If the DSS and LXX and others agree against the MT, they go with the other reading. It's critical scholarship and I think this is the best approach. Most if not all Bibles have footnotes of alternate readings; I have several Bibles and all do this. Some are more conservative than others, some prioritise different sources to others, but all rely on the MT as their base text, not one uses the LXX as its primary source; you'd have to look to the Eastern Churches for that. And if they do, so what? The LXX is older than the MT, as are the DSS, are are rightly used as alternate sources for translation. I see no issue with this kind of critical scholarship. The RSV and NRSV have 'young woman', the ESV has 'virgin' because those are both possible readings from various manuscripts. If you go back far enough, Tyndale actually appears to make a distinction between 'maiden' and 'virgin', so this has been considered since at least the 16th c.
Last edited:
KJV definitely has the best poetry, but in some instances, I feel that has led to some inaccurate readings. Best example of that is 1 Corinthians 13. Look at these two translations, first from the New International Version, second from KJV.
If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. (NIV)
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. (KJV)
In my reading, the KJV (second, in blue) is so much more wonderfully poetic, almost Shakespearean, while the NIV is really quite prosaic. KJV sings, speaks to the heart through word and meter, while NIV tries to speak to the mind, which is the less caring part of our human understanding.
But NIV translated the word "caritas" correctly -- as "love," -- while KJV rendered it much less accurately, as "charity," which sadly robs it of its essential meaning, which is (I think) altruistic love, the selfless concern for the well-being of others.
But over all -- probably because of my age and my love of Shakespeare -- I prefer reading KJV.
If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. (NIV)
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. (KJV)
In my reading, the KJV (second, in blue) is so much more wonderfully poetic, almost Shakespearean, while the NIV is really quite prosaic. KJV sings, speaks to the heart through word and meter, while NIV tries to speak to the mind, which is the less caring part of our human understanding.
But NIV translated the word "caritas" correctly -- as "love," -- while KJV rendered it much less accurately, as "charity," which sadly robs it of its essential meaning, which is (I think) altruistic love, the selfless concern for the well-being of others.
But over all -- probably because of my age and my love of Shakespeare -- I prefer reading KJV.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
They pretty much have opted for the LXX in cases where the LXX supports their Christological theology and the Masoretic does not.
It's good to hear that some of the more recent translations are opting for "young woman." I think there is a movement among Christian scholars to be more interested in the Jewish roots of their faith, including a greater respect for the Hebrew text.
But then again, you also have your KJV only people, who think that God spoke directly to King James
Can you give any examples of this, because I can't really think of any. The reason they go with non-MT readings is usually because those readings have a more historical basis, such as this (Deut 32:8),
When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance,
when he divided mankind,
he fixed the borders of the peoples
according to the number of the sons of God.
As far as scholars can tell, 'sons of God' is original and refers either to other gods or angels etc. who are given other portions, where Israel is YHWH's portion, other nations are the portions of these other sons of God, El. In the MT this is changed to 'sons of Israel', which makes no sense here. Sons of God, having a polytheistic bent, doesn't really suit Christianity either; so I'm not sure one can call this a Christological issue. You will find some bibles that use 'sons of Israel' (NIV) and some that use 'sons of God' (ESV), and the NRSV, according to many the most scholarly translation out there, 'according to the number of the gods'.
The MT does seem to have its share of emendations, as we can see from comparison with the DSS and LXX; from a scholarly POV there's no reason to prefer the MT, which is the last to be codified.
So I think it's less a Christological issue and more a 'Bronze/Iron Age Judaism doesn't agree with any modern theology' issue. The trouble here is that words like 'ruach' also have theological meanings that may well be later theological interpolations. I'm happy acknowledging that the theology of Jews and proto-Jews 3,000 years ago was not the same as that today, and their texts reflect that. That's cool.
'Parthenos' is an interesting one though because in Ancient Greek it can have multiple meanings, and one is 'young woman', another is 'woman who has not had children'. Whilst 'young woman' can imply a virgin, it's not necessarily so. By the time Matthew quotes it, it seems to have crystalised into meaning 'virgin' as we understand it. So translating it is not straightforward. Mediaevals also had a flexible definition of 'virgin',
'Instead, the definition of virginity was revised. Of course, it still retained its traditional meaning; a lack of sexual intercourse and that was preferable. But, virginity could also be a state of mind rather than a physical condition and thus was covered a multitude of sins. Literally.
The most obvious exemption would need to be for wives, after all, marriage was a sacrament in the Roman Catholic church and could not be considered legal until the couple had had sex. Such church-sanctioned relations couldn’t very well be considered a sin. But! Married women need not worry, assuming they did not commit adultery (a sin in itself) and limited their sexual activity to their husbands, they could still be considered virgins. Sex with a husband was allowed by the church therefore was no obstruction to a holy life and could still be considered virginal. A wife could gain bonus virgin points if she did not remarry after her husband’s death or for even more points, take the veil and become a nun. Such an act would cement her virginity, not quite as good as saving oneself altogether but permitted under church teaching nonetheless.'
How to be a Medieval Virgin (It’s easier than you’d think).
When Christianity was established back in the day (I’m talking about the church fathers who established the church rather than that Jesus bloke who started the religion) a question was asked on how…
thehistoricalnovel.com
In turn, virginity and chastity can mean many things, from biological intactness, to spiritual integrity, to sexual fidelity within marriage.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Other than the two examples I already gave you, I cannot recall off hand the other places. This was something I learned in a conversation with someone who with Tovia Singer on the Jews for Judaism site. We literally went through maybe four or five different passages that he showed me were different in Christian bibles. I really wish I could reproduce that experience for you, but I can't. I've tried googling it, but the search engine is not understanding my question. I'm afraid you are stuck with what I've already said, and if you want to doubt that, I won't take it personally.
I don't doubt it. I spent 5 or so years as a Noachide listening to Tovia so I'm more or less neutral with regards to the Jewish/Christian debate and spent a lot of time arguing on behalf of Jews and Judaism on here. I'm very familiar with Singer, Skobac, and their various outreaches. I'm not wedded to particular interpretations and am open to correction. However, after having studied more Christian interpretations based on other Jewish theologies than the mainstream one I am slightly more sympathetic than I was before.
For that reason I like it the best. And for some of the translation issues such as the one in the post, I know what the better translation is so I substitute it mentally.
I actually read that 1 Cor. 13 at my best friends funeral, and I read the KJV and changed only "charity" to "love." Worked beautifully.
One gets the sense that you haven't checked in a while.
For the Torah
The "whys" vary from book to book, but the common denominator is that each offers insights while exhibiting a thorough knowledge of and clear respect for critical scholarship.
- The 5-volume JPS commentary is exceptional.
- The Plaut commentary, based on the JPS translation, includes highly informative introductions to each book and parashah.
- The JPS-based Jewish Study Bible
- The Robert Alter Hebrew Bible offers many linguistic insights
- The Jewish Annotated New Testament (Edited by Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler)
The "whys" vary from book to book, but the common denominator is that each offers insights while exhibiting a thorough knowledge of and clear respect for critical scholarship.
If you can bring some examples I'd like to go into them. It would be good to bring them up to my university lecturers. We are told generally to use the NRSV for our quotes. I'm hoping my LXX comes soon so I can do a compare and contrast.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
RSV, which is more used in scriptural studies amongst theologians.