The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Galumph, Leon_C, Rocco, Hvizsgyak, P.W.
5,984 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 members (1 invisible), 246 guests, and 50 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,389
Posts416,722
Members5,984
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#322889 05/24/09 07:14 PM
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 161
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 161
I consider myself very much a traditionalist - read Orthodox-tradition, not the Latinized tradition of the post couple centuries - Byzantine Catholic. As a Roman Catholic, I used the Ignatius Bible (RSV with the Deuterocanon and Catholic commentary).

As a Byzantine Catholic who now considers himself more of a "big-O Orthodox" who just happens to be in communion with the Pope of Rome, I'm hoping that you my Forum friends could recommend a Scripture (both OT and NT) translation that uses the traditional language (Elizabethan English) of the KJV or - I believe - the Douay-Rheims and has commentary / annotations.

Also, since I believe we (Orthodox and Catholic) are all members of the Mystical Body of Christ in his Church, I'd like to see such a translation that spares any partisan polemics. What I mean is, I'd like a translation that is traditional in its language without either the triumphalism that the Catholic Church is the One True Church of Christ and the Orthodox Church is schismatic or that the Orthodox Church is the One True Christian Church and the Catholic Church is in schism.

Is this too tall an order?

Thanks to all in advance...

In OLGS Jesus Christ,

S

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 85
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 85
The main problem with the request is the need for Elizabethean language in the translation. Quite simply, those who want that do not make new translations and editions of the bible they use either KJV or RSV.

Your best bet then is to stick with your trusty old RSV and get your commentary from other sources.

Steve Puluka
Cantor Holy Ghost Church, Mckees Rocks, PA
MA Theology Duquesne

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 773
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 773
I agree with Steve, use the RSV or KJV. The two editions of the Bible I link to for purchase on my web site are the Orthodox Study Bible and the New Oxford Annotated Study Bible, Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha.

Blessings,

Lance

A Byzantine Christian in a Postmodern World [byzantinechristian.blogspot.com]

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,712
Likes: 1
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,712
Likes: 1
I have five English versions: Catholic RSV (good reading), Douay/Confraternity, full (with Apocrypha/deuterocanonicals) KJV, Orthodox Study Bible New Testament and Psalms, and New Oxford Annotated Study Bible, Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha (good resource as it has all the Orthodox biblical text but it's ickily politically correct, not a fun Bible to read).

(Also traditional Book of Common Prayer psalms and canticles in the 1662/US 1928 BCPs themselves, the unofficial Anglican Breviary from the 1950s (more or less a translation of the Roman Breviary at the time) and (getting the most use of these) the Monastic Diurnal, an Anglo-Catholic book from around the 1930s that BTW is the official Roman Rite breviary of the Antiochian Orthodox Church and I think ROCOR as well.)

AFAIK the Orthodox Study Bible is more or less a de-thou'd KJV with Protestant-convert Orthodox commentary (a distinctive editorial voice: 'see how un-Roman we are' so it comes off as Lutheran about the Eucharist for example).

Two versions 'don't get no respect' because they're paraphrases not translations: Today's English Version, commonly called the Good News Bible, very popular about 35 years ago, and the Living Bible, the project of a good man who set out to paraphrase the KJV to teach his kids. He never claimed it was an actual Bible translation for serious reading and study. You can blame Billy Graham for that: in his likewise well-meant evangelistic zeal, critics say, he watered down scripture by pushing a dumbed-down version ('never mind accuracy; just get the basic message out to save people'). The man who wrote it never claimed theological training and I understand there were lots of mistakes. I think thanks to bad education/semi-literacy today there's a cleaned-up (by experts) version including a Catholic one with an imprimatur (but not approved for liturgical use).

Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 787
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 787
A very mild updating of the Authorised (King James) Version of the Bible is available under the somewhat strange tile of The Third Millennium Bible.

The Third Millennium Bible [tmbible.com]

The updated of language in this translation is very minor. It retains the use of the second person singular (thee/thou) with archaic verb endings. It makes changes to the Authorised Version only when archaic words have truly become misleading to modern readers (e.g. conversion = manner of living, prevent = go before, let = to hinder).

The Third Millennium Bible has all of the Books of the original Authorised Version (i.e. it includes the so-called Old Testament Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical Books. That means it has 1 & 2 Esdras, which the Roman Catholic Canon does not contain. On the other hand, it does not have 3 or 4 Maccabees or Psalm 151, which are part of the Orthodox Canon.

The Third Millennium Bible has no commentary. It is the Biblical Text only. A good commentary on the Four Gospels is Blessed Theophylact's Commentaries.

Blessed Theophylact's Explanation of the New Testament [chrysostompress.org]

Fr David Straut


Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 569
Likes: 2
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 569
Likes: 2
Please read Archimandrite Ephrem (Lash)'s critique of 'holy' English in his review of the Pentecostarion published by Holy Transfiuration monastery in Boston.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Z
Member
Offline
Member
Z
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
I have problems with the Third Millinium KJV. For oen thing, I cant unerstand why they replaced "Astonied" with "STunned" rather than "Astonished".

But that minor. I wish it was released in Verse format. I know the original texts wherent in Verse, but bneither where htey in Paragraph form, and as a Dyslexic I find the Verse format easier to read. Besides, it makes it easier to look up Chapter and Verse.

The Easier-To-Read Paragrpah form I don't favour.


I just us emy Cambridge 1611 Authorised King James Version, with Apocrypha, and for additional works, like 3 and 4 Maccabees, rely on other translaitons, such as an independant "Apocrypha" translaiton I have here somewhere, or onlien soruces.

They may not be styalistically similar, but they work to fill the gaps.

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 1
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 1
I have been very happy with the RSV 2nd Catholic edition. It reads well, is accurate as best I can tell, and doesn't use de-gendered language.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 543
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 543
I've been using the New Jerusalem Bible Study Edition. I realize that "every translation is like kissing your wife through a handkerchief" but I especially enjoy my NJB. I made this choice after consultation with several Catholic biblical scholars whose thoughts I appreciate and respect. Some of these folks are on the Pontifical Biblical Commission, personally chosen by the Holy Father. I respect their input. So, it's the NJB for me. And I am deeply enriched by it everyday.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 439
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 439
One hopes your were talking metaphorically, Monk Silouan! wink

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461
Likes: 1
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461
Likes: 1
For the New Testament I also use the +Fan Noli translation from the late 1950s which is directly from the Greek and not a KJV derivative (we use his Epistle and Gospel lectionary liturgically). I do also like the RSV.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 543
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 543
Actually this observation was told to me by a Dominican Order priest from the Holy Land. NOT my personal observation.

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 357
C
Member
Offline
Member
C
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 357
http://www.roca.org/OA/61/61k.htm

I think this is the best article on this subject. It might be a bit old but still very good.

Chad

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 10,930
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 10,930
Originally Posted by monksilouan
Actually this observation was told to me by a Dominican Order priest from the Holy Land. NOT my personal observation.

Dear Monksilouan,

I watch ebay and catch the earlier versions of the Jerusalem Bible for very little money to give them away.

Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,505
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,505
Ever try the Bible program Bibleworks7. I have been using it the last few days and am really impressed.
Stephanos I

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  theophan 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2023). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5