When meditating on the Word of God, choose a Bible translation that works best for you—but whatever you do, don’t go with a “contemporary English” version
YES! This just *is* Psalm 23 for the vast majority of English speakers, and when my wife and I taught that psalm to our children, that's the version we used.
Nice article. When I went onto the Bibliotheca sites last night I noted the description of contents at least referenced the Catholic books as "Apocrypha (Deuterocanon)"
Personally I find the Jerusalem Bible (1966) a great version for Lectio and meditative reading. I have the readers edition as well as the very good 1966 study edition which is far superior to the NJB and the recent RNJB. It has orthodox notes and the most comprehensive and best cross references of any Catholic Bible. It does take some time adjusting to the usage of "Yahweh", (which I wish they had at least rendered YHWH), but like the Jews, one learns to mentally or verbally replace with LORD as one reads.
I find the style quite poetic and memorable, and gain fresh insights every time I read the JB. Much prefer it to the RDVCE or ESV. It is also the version used in the Divine Office in Australia and I have a subscription to the app Universalis with audio, so I praying parts of the office is with the JB every day
I do know the JB has its enthusiasts, and I've enjoyed reading passages in it before. Certainly vastly better than the NAB or the various "Good News for Modern Man"-type versions.
Yes and as I say for study it is incomparable with any other version for study because it has a very comprehensive cross referencing system including into and out of the Deuterocanonicals. The otherwise lamentable NABRE study Bible actually has a quite good set of cross references, but I've found typos in their references, and it is still not as comprehensive as the 1966 JB standard edition (which is the study edition). And of course the "study notes" in the NABRE are tainted by modernist errors and are too far from orthodox to give to newcomers.
Confraternity or Knox (both to hand) are two I like. The first is a light American update of Challoner's work (both Latin Mass locations I frequent (diocesan and SSPX in Ireland) use it) and the second is itself an update of sorts, translating the Vulgate anew in the light of Hebrew and Greek originals, but keeping a lively and stately form of expression.
I would guess you pray the Divine Office in Latin, but if you prayed it in English which English Psalter would you prefer to use? Would it be the ALV Psalter? Also, do you have an opinion on the suitability of the Coverdale Psalter for use by Catholics?
Yes, I use the Vulgate, but if I had to use English, perhaps the Coverdale would be best. I think I'd probably take up the Ordinariate's breviary. Well, I'd think about it.
It's a fantastic version. I highly recommend that everyone have it among their Bible versions (especially if, as St. Augustine says, you want to have multiple versions to compare). It's obviously idiosyncratic and very British, so it's probably never going to establish itself as a really popular version; yet the eloquence is unmistakable, and as one wag said, Knox seems to make more sense out of St. Paul than St. Paul sometimes did in the original language.
While trying avoid a quarrel, I humbly suggest that asserting Hebrew as the original language of the OT might be an overstatement in this sense: there may have been post-Christian tinkering with the texts, and the Septuagint may have captured some of those earlier variations better than a Jewish Hebrew text decades after the earthly ministry of Christ. To assert otherwise seems Protestant.
I would only note - which I failed to do in the article - that the Anglicanorum Coetibus Society has available a Catholic edition of the King James Bible:
Thank you for visiting an issue which has bothered me for some time. I am particularly grateful to both you & Anthony Jones for the link to the Walsingham site and the related comments.
Up to now, my reflections on the KJV bible were mainly based on my understanding that this translation was based on the Masoretic texts.
And that, to me, meant that the translation would be 'suspect' for the simple reason that these texts were 'edited' (mainly by adding the vowel markers) by scholars, hostile to Christianlty who had every reason to make interpretation of certain portions of the Old Testament related to prophesies more difficult if not impossible in a Christian context.
Whether any of the objections listed in the above commentary are 'fixed' in the Walsingham version, I have not taken the time to verify or review.
However there is, IMO, a very much related topic to the Anglicanized translations. It is a pet peeve of mine. Specifically it is the translation in the final phrase of the 'Glory be', as well as in a good number of similar instances.
Where the Latin text concludes with " ... _et in saecula saeculorum_. ", the English translation is given as " _world without end_. " This phrase transposes the meaning from the temporal sphere to the physical sphere. This is in definite contrast to the German, French, Italian, Greek, Portuguese, Spanish etc.
My standing question pertains to the Confraternity translation. Is it sound or not? I know it was the precursor to the NAB, but it was put together before the Council, and the NT was done by 1941. I know the makeup of the Pontifical Biblical Commission was already changing by the middle of the 20th century, but I have no idea whether that negatively affected the orthodoxy of this translation (either OT or NT). If anyone has any insight, I’m all ears!
Do you have any experience with the Orthodox Study Bible? I noticed the other day that Hilary White uses it. Presumably the translation of the LXX is reliable etc.
Was the American Literary Version ever given the nihil obstat and imprimatur? That it wasn't wouldn't keep me from buying the Bibliotheca edition; the price probably will, but it occurs to me that I managed (eventually!) to spend a similar amount on a breviary.
No, the ALV is produced by Protestants. Nice people, I've exchanged some emails with their team. They are not anti-Catholic, but they still refer to the deuterocanonicals as the "apocrypha" etc.
Do you then trust the King James Version for Catholics (Walsingham Publishing) as far as doctrinal accuracy goes? Maybe we'll be hearing more about it in traditional circles if its literary value combined with sound translation and added books makes it another excellent choice for both study and spiritual reading?
Personally I do not have experience with the Ordinariate's KJV, but I cannot imagine it has not been edited to remove the mistranslations. Perhaps someone else here can weigh in.
“The only changes other than placing the books in the familiar order which I am planning are to follow the 2008 letter from the CDW, written at Pope Benedict's request, that asks that the Holy Name of God, the Tetragrammaton, be rendered in English as ‘The Lord’ rather than ‘Jehovah.’ Jews stopped pronouncing the Tetragrammaton during the Second Temple Era, and early Christians also never attempted to prounounce the Holy Name. This will only affect eight verses in the entire KJV, and in each case a footnote will indicate the original text.
In addition, there will be some small number of footnotes where the text differs significantly from current understanding of the original languages. But one of the features of the original KJV that made it different from other translations being produced at the time was the lack of marginal notes, which tended to be polemical attacks on other translations.
Isn't it full of errors?
While Bibles produced by groups of Protestants issuing from the Continental Reformation often specifically use wording to deny Catholic doctrine, that is not the case with the King James Version, which was produced by ‘High Church’ parties within Anglicanism under the direction of a monarch with strong Catholic leanings.
In preparing this edition and deciding where to place footnotes, I have asked for assistance in identifying those ‘errors.’ Lists of purported errors have been provided. My answers to one such list show that the majority of so-called ‘errors’ are language choices which the KJV shares with the Douay: http://www.walsinghampublishing.com/kjv/KJVpurportedErrors.html”
I don’t know enough to know whether that is a satisfactory answer.
Speaking of poetry, the 23rd Psalm (22nd in the DR) in the KJV is just beautiful. Besides the KJV and DR, I also use the RSVCE2.
YES! This just *is* Psalm 23 for the vast majority of English speakers, and when my wife and I taught that psalm to our children, that's the version we used.
Nice article. When I went onto the Bibliotheca sites last night I noted the description of contents at least referenced the Catholic books as "Apocrypha (Deuterocanon)"
Personally I find the Jerusalem Bible (1966) a great version for Lectio and meditative reading. I have the readers edition as well as the very good 1966 study edition which is far superior to the NJB and the recent RNJB. It has orthodox notes and the most comprehensive and best cross references of any Catholic Bible. It does take some time adjusting to the usage of "Yahweh", (which I wish they had at least rendered YHWH), but like the Jews, one learns to mentally or verbally replace with LORD as one reads.
I find the style quite poetic and memorable, and gain fresh insights every time I read the JB. Much prefer it to the RDVCE or ESV. It is also the version used in the Divine Office in Australia and I have a subscription to the app Universalis with audio, so I praying parts of the office is with the JB every day
I do know the JB has its enthusiasts, and I've enjoyed reading passages in it before. Certainly vastly better than the NAB or the various "Good News for Modern Man"-type versions.
Yes and as I say for study it is incomparable with any other version for study because it has a very comprehensive cross referencing system including into and out of the Deuterocanonicals. The otherwise lamentable NABRE study Bible actually has a quite good set of cross references, but I've found typos in their references, and it is still not as comprehensive as the 1966 JB standard edition (which is the study edition). And of course the "study notes" in the NABRE are tainted by modernist errors and are too far from orthodox to give to newcomers.
Confraternity or Knox (both to hand) are two I like. The first is a light American update of Challoner's work (both Latin Mass locations I frequent (diocesan and SSPX in Ireland) use it) and the second is itself an update of sorts, translating the Vulgate anew in the light of Hebrew and Greek originals, but keeping a lively and stately form of expression.
Dr. K,
I would guess you pray the Divine Office in Latin, but if you prayed it in English which English Psalter would you prefer to use? Would it be the ALV Psalter? Also, do you have an opinion on the suitability of the Coverdale Psalter for use by Catholics?
Thank you!
Yes, I use the Vulgate, but if I had to use English, perhaps the Coverdale would be best. I think I'd probably take up the Ordinariate's breviary. Well, I'd think about it.
I like the Knox Bible, Dr K. What do you think of it?
It's a fantastic version. I highly recommend that everyone have it among their Bible versions (especially if, as St. Augustine says, you want to have multiple versions to compare). It's obviously idiosyncratic and very British, so it's probably never going to establish itself as a really popular version; yet the eloquence is unmistakable, and as one wag said, Knox seems to make more sense out of St. Paul than St. Paul sometimes did in the original language.
I wrote a little about it here:
https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2017/09/looking-for-new-insights-into-scripture.html
Msgr Knox is indeed a wonderful writer, with a magnificent turn of phrase. I think the “very English-ness” of it is what delights me. 😀
While trying avoid a quarrel, I humbly suggest that asserting Hebrew as the original language of the OT might be an overstatement in this sense: there may have been post-Christian tinkering with the texts, and the Septuagint may have captured some of those earlier variations better than a Jewish Hebrew text decades after the earthly ministry of Christ. To assert otherwise seems Protestant.
I am aware of that, to be sure, and discuss it here:
https://www.traditionsanity.com/p/why-we-should-follow-the-traditional
And to a certain extent here:
https://www.traditionsanity.com/p/what-should-take-precedence-tradition
I would only note - which I failed to do in the article - that the Anglicanorum Coetibus Society has available a Catholic edition of the King James Bible:
http://www.walsinghampublishing.com/kjv/
Through the Ordinariate, the KJV is now approved for Catholic use, and there is even an edition that has the Catholic canon of the Old Testament.
Thanks for this post. I, too, find the Douay Rheims a bit stilted for use in Lectio Divina. The ESV and the RSV2CE are easier to read.
Thank you for visiting an issue which has bothered me for some time. I am particularly grateful to both you & Anthony Jones for the link to the Walsingham site and the related comments.
Up to now, my reflections on the KJV bible were mainly based on my understanding that this translation was based on the Masoretic texts.
And that, to me, meant that the translation would be 'suspect' for the simple reason that these texts were 'edited' (mainly by adding the vowel markers) by scholars, hostile to Christianlty who had every reason to make interpretation of certain portions of the Old Testament related to prophesies more difficult if not impossible in a Christian context.
Much of that information came from an orthodox priest https://arizonaorthodox.com/2017/11/masoretic-text-vs-original-hebrew/
Whether any of the objections listed in the above commentary are 'fixed' in the Walsingham version, I have not taken the time to verify or review.
However there is, IMO, a very much related topic to the Anglicanized translations. It is a pet peeve of mine. Specifically it is the translation in the final phrase of the 'Glory be', as well as in a good number of similar instances.
Where the Latin text concludes with " ... _et in saecula saeculorum_. ", the English translation is given as " _world without end_. " This phrase transposes the meaning from the temporal sphere to the physical sphere. This is in definite contrast to the German, French, Italian, Greek, Portuguese, Spanish etc.
The first usage of this phrase I have found is from Cranmer's 1549 'missal' @ http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1549/BCP1549.pdf
FWIW, this issue will be for me at least, a topic for further research, though comments or links will be very much appreciated.
The Catholic edition of the RSV removes the Thees and Thous. Better to get the earlier ecumenical edition.
There actually was an earlier Catholic edition with the Thees and Thous.
Thanks for the valuable advice Dr K.🙏
My standing question pertains to the Confraternity translation. Is it sound or not? I know it was the precursor to the NAB, but it was put together before the Council, and the NT was done by 1941. I know the makeup of the Pontifical Biblical Commission was already changing by the middle of the 20th century, but I have no idea whether that negatively affected the orthodoxy of this translation (either OT or NT). If anyone has any insight, I’m all ears!
Do you have any experience with the Orthodox Study Bible? I noticed the other day that Hilary White uses it. Presumably the translation of the LXX is reliable etc.
I'm sure this would be a very interesting addition to any Bible shelf or desk! But I have no personal experience with it.
Was the American Literary Version ever given the nihil obstat and imprimatur? That it wasn't wouldn't keep me from buying the Bibliotheca edition; the price probably will, but it occurs to me that I managed (eventually!) to spend a similar amount on a breviary.
No, the ALV is produced by Protestants. Nice people, I've exchanged some emails with their team. They are not anti-Catholic, but they still refer to the deuterocanonicals as the "apocrypha" etc.
Thank you, Dr. Kwasniewski!
Do you then trust the King James Version for Catholics (Walsingham Publishing) as far as doctrinal accuracy goes? Maybe we'll be hearing more about it in traditional circles if its literary value combined with sound translation and added books makes it another excellent choice for both study and spiritual reading?
Personally I do not have experience with the Ordinariate's KJV, but I cannot imagine it has not been edited to remove the mistranslations. Perhaps someone else here can weigh in.
It seems the editor of the translation has at least partially addressed that on its homepage (http://www.walsinghampublishing.com/kjv/):
“The only changes other than placing the books in the familiar order which I am planning are to follow the 2008 letter from the CDW, written at Pope Benedict's request, that asks that the Holy Name of God, the Tetragrammaton, be rendered in English as ‘The Lord’ rather than ‘Jehovah.’ Jews stopped pronouncing the Tetragrammaton during the Second Temple Era, and early Christians also never attempted to prounounce the Holy Name. This will only affect eight verses in the entire KJV, and in each case a footnote will indicate the original text.
In addition, there will be some small number of footnotes where the text differs significantly from current understanding of the original languages. But one of the features of the original KJV that made it different from other translations being produced at the time was the lack of marginal notes, which tended to be polemical attacks on other translations.
Isn't it full of errors?
While Bibles produced by groups of Protestants issuing from the Continental Reformation often specifically use wording to deny Catholic doctrine, that is not the case with the King James Version, which was produced by ‘High Church’ parties within Anglicanism under the direction of a monarch with strong Catholic leanings.
In preparing this edition and deciding where to place footnotes, I have asked for assistance in identifying those ‘errors.’ Lists of purported errors have been provided. My answers to one such list show that the majority of so-called ‘errors’ are language choices which the KJV shares with the Douay: http://www.walsinghampublishing.com/kjv/KJVpurportedErrors.html”
I don’t know enough to know whether that is a satisfactory answer.
Many thanks....it's a good start. It seems they give a list of "purported errors"? Hopefully, we (they) can catch all the errors.
Lovely article. Do you know where I can get a copy of the Vulgate?
There are several editions of the Vulgate out there.
Parallel Vulgate and Douay:
https://www.baronius.com/douay-rheims-clementina-vulgata.html
Beautiful Desclee edition of just the Latin:
https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2022/08/announcing-new-facsimile-edition-of.html
Thank you