Choice of Bible?

When I bought my Bible, I bought the NRSV:Catholic Edition, Anglicised Text version.
Seemed to get good reviews on the back, and I found it easy to read.
However, my mum went to a Bible study group, and the priest recommended the **Jerusalem Bible. **
I compared a random passage from both, expecting the differences to be minor, but, there was quite a difference in choice of words and phrasing. I was just curious, which is preferred/recommended by, those who study the Bible, (scholars and theologians, I know they would probably prefer the original Greek and so on, but) for an English translation.
I’ve only included NRSV / Jerusalem versions in the poll as those are the ones I currently have, but feel free to mention any others in your replies.
Thanks, in advance,:thumbsup: for any and all opinions.

RSV CE is the one I prefer (though I read a lot from just the RSV).

It is a more literal and beautiful text…and is the one you will find many good scholars using…as well as the RSV is what is used in the Catechism and other documents in English from the Church…

I’ve got the New American Bible. Had it since 8th grade.

The problem is not only with the translation from Greek into English or any other language, but also, and maybe above all with the Greek version, that is chosen to be translated. As far as I know, we have now about 2,000 versions of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Not a single of them is identical. Copyist of manuscripts used to change texts due to several reasons (errors, corrections of suspected errors, theologically motivated alterations etc.), therefore it is always better to use the translation based on the oldest attainable copy of the scripture. Such copy has normally the fewest number of errors or alterations, hence should be best comparable to the originals, which unfortunately have not survived until our times.

I would rather have the one which is Catholic, endorsed by the country’s Catholic Bishops Conference. Look for the one with many commentaries and essays (front and back) which could help you understand the caveats of many different passages. With this, the “minor” difference between two Bible translations should be obvious.

The NRSV, has been rejected for liturgical use by the Vatican - the Canadians have had to make a zillion changes to the text.

The JB is apporved for most of the rest of the world including the UK and OZ and I believe Ireland too.

-The NRSV is more literal, though dynamic in places.
-The NRSV deletes references to Christ in the OT and NT via its obsessive use of inclusive language.
-The NRSVs I’ve seen say on the cover, trusted, reliable, most accurate (all the main Protestant translations seem to claim this) - but according to whom

-The Jerusalem Bible is dynamic yet with a nice literary quality.
-I read it often

Though the slavish original 1582 Douay Rheims is my most fav, the main Bible I reccomend is the Confraternity Bible. It’s literal, poetic and has the tradtional Catholic terms and though it has some archaic language nothing like the Douay Rheims or King James and much more readable. It was used for the US lectionary before the NAB and its horrid notes.

So for a nice dynamic tranlation I’d say the Jerusalem Bible but for literal the Confraternity Bible.

For study bibles Ignatius are relasing soon a NT study Bible with the RSV-CE2 and that will be worth the money if you’re after good notes! The Navarre series with the RSV-CE1 has great notes too and can be bought in a condensed NT and then there’s the classic Haydock notes with Douay Rheims.

Douay-Rheims Haydock Edition.

The Douay-Rheims & Clementina Vulgata from Baronius Press would be my choice if I was buying now though.

Though for a first Bible the Haydock version does have best the commentary still I believe.

I can second this, but also add that for simple reading (as opposed to study) the Knox version has become my favorite - more info here:’s_Translation_of_the_Vulgate. Good copies are not always easy to come by, but if you wait a bit Barnious Press should be coming out with crisp, clean copies later this year. Of course, they said that last year. . .

Peace all.

No version of the Bible is perfect. Theoretically, from the scholar’s point of view, the newest is the translation, the better should be the text, because it is based on latest discoveries in relation to old manuscripts, as well as the knowledge of ancient history and social life. From this point of view, your suggestion is the worst possible. It is a translation from the translation based on faulty Greek texts (NT) done in the Middle Ages (very old). The same problem is with all translations based on latin Vulgate. Closest to the original should be the NASB from 1995, because it is relatively new and based on newly found oldest manuscripts, not known earlier.
It’s a pity we don’t know the original version of NT.

I’ll keep my Douay over the latest NIV anyday :smiley:
What about the translation that renders full of grace (Kecharitomene) as ‘you beautiful’
NASV - Mt 1:25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; :confused:
NASV - Lk 1:28 "Greetings, favored one! (Charitoo means to grace)

In reality are the differences between the Clementine and the NASV that great :shrug: The Original Douay used the best Latin recension available and then compared to the best available Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. Notice the Our Father does not contain the thine is the kingdom etc lik the King James for example. Even today the 1582 Douay stands as an accurate if not as readable transaltion.

NASV Mt 6:13 ‘And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil.[For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.’]

Original languages > Bishop’s Bible > King James > SV > ASV > NASV > NASV95

All things being equal if you are taking a class or bible study you should have the version being used in that class. If you can afford only one bible, it should be the one approved for use in the lectionary at Mass in your country. Your priest’s recommendation should carry the most weight. Any translation approved by the bishops of your country is acceptable for private devotion but for teaching, bible study and use in a group it should be one approved for lectionary.

I like the RSV-CE from St Benedict Press

I use the new american bible.

I go back and forth between the New Jerusalem Bible and the ESV (I have the edition with the deuterocanonical books) depending on whether I want literal or not. In third place is the Ignatius Bible Second Edition.

I’ve got a few NAB’s, which I use for following along with readings durring mass. But my study and reading bible is the Douay-Rheims bible. I have a Bishop Challoner and Rev. Haydock (excellent btw) version at home. Frequently when doing my CSS study on revelation I’ll read the chapter first from the study guide (uses RSV-CE), then again in Douay (Haydock) along with notes, then Dr Hahn’s Opinion, along with the CCC.

+Mother Angelica of worldwide EWTN fame loved and used the . . . **1966 Jerusalem Bible ** (a paraphrase not a word for word translation) . . . in her teaching . . . but frequently sounded serious warnings about the . . . loss of Sacred Truth (Holy Thoughts of God) . . . via the unholy use of . . . “inclusive language” . . . incorporated into ALL this Bible’s versions thereafter . . .

:bible1: The Holy Bible (Douay Rheims Version [Douai-Rheims], Revised by Bishop Richard Challoner) is a wonderful translation . . . it was first translated . . . word for word . . . from the Latin Vulgate, the Catholic Church’s Official Bible. Bishop Challoner’s edition phrases it to make it more reader-friendly. It was the only English Catholic Bible for over 300 years and has been greatly blessed of God as such. The original Latin translation is largely the result of the **Holy Spirit’s **inspiration and annointing of the labors of the blessed St. Jerome . . . and some of the manuscripts **St. Jerome **used are no longer in existence.

[size=]Pope Pius XII stated that the
Holy :bible1: Bible
Latin Vulgate Translation
was **
“free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals.”**
With **St. Jerome **. . . **who as well as being a SAINT is a HOLY DOCTOR of the Catholic Church . . . and . . . ** the Vicar of Christ’s declaration of support . . . . . . you can’t go wrong with this Bible . . .

Below are comments from the **Eternal Word Television Network’s ** website . . . which also contain some examples of the Holy See’s gravely serious definitive and corrective point of view on some Biblical translations on the market today.

[INDENT]:bible1: Douai-Rheims [Douay-Rheims]. The original Catholic Bible in English, pre-dating the King James Version (1611). It was translated from the Latin Vulgate, the Church’s official Scripture text, by English Catholics in exile on the continent. The NT [New Testament] was completed and published in 1582 when the English College (the seminary for English Catholics) was located at Rheims. The Old Testament was published in 1610 when the College was located at Douai. [/INDENT]

**The renown teaching priest Father John Corapi ** endorses and highly recommends the **ORIGINAL Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition ** of Sacred :bible1: Scripture as his favored modern English translation . . . please note that this is the ORIGINAL RSV-CE.

[INDENT]:bible1: Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (RSV-CE).Considered the best combination of literal (formal equivalence translation) and literary by many orthodox Catholic scholars. Published today by Ignatius Press (Ignatius Bible) and Scepter Press …**[/INDENT]

The enemy of souls most unholy spirit has used the grave and disordered error of “inclusive language” (stripping God the Holy Spirit’s designated use of masculine and feminine words from text re God and mankind and neutering them) to make serious inroads in corrupting that which the **God the Holy Spirit **has entrusted to Christ’s Most Holy Apostolic Roman Catholic Church . . . when/if purchasing a Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition be very careful not to request the NEW RSV-CE . . . which is being heavily promoted nowadays and contains real errors . . . the NAB version has a similar problem . . .

[INDENT]New Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (1989). An adaptation for Catholic use of the NRSV of the National Council of the Churches of Christ. Although used in the American edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it was rejected for liturgical use by the Holy See owing to inclusive language … ******[/INDENT]

[INDENT]**NAB with Revised Psalms and Revised New Testament (1991) [also a paraphrase not a word for word translation]. It was **due to the use of vertical inclusive language **(re: God and Christ) and some uses of horizontal inclusive language (re: human beings), that the Holy See rejected this text as the basis of a revised Lectionary for the United States. This is the version of the NAB currently on sale in the United States. ******
[/INDENT][RIGHT]. . . all for Jesus+
St. Jerome please pray for us+
thank You Lord for Thy Wonderful Holy Word+

The Douay-Rheims all the way. When I go to the Novus Ordo at my local parish (as little as possible) I like to be able to read the lines that they skip over.

I’d steer clear of the of the New Atheist Bible (NAB), though. Not because of the translation, but because of the notes. In the versions I have, the notes range from very dodgy to downright heretical. I don’t say that lightly… I mean like one version claimed that Isaiah’s prophecy of Cyrus was a hoax.*

The NAB tries to assassinate the faith throughout… hopefully HH will someday order them all to be burned.

*- Though, according to the Talmud, Cyrus was convinced.

I keep hearing negative comments about the notes of the NAB. This is the only bible I’ve had since childhood. I always thought the notes were very helpful. Since I am ignorant of the other bibles out there, I am curious. Are there other examples of the NAB being an inferior bible, or having erroneous notes??

Why would our pastor pass them out to all the 8th graders if this version is not so good?

As the OP points out, there’s nothing wrong with the bible translation at all. It’s a solid modern english translation of the texts. Though I will note some of the chapter divisions are a little odd, on a couple occations durring my study of revelation when referring back to the OT I had to cross reference against my Douay bible to figure out where something was.

I’ve heard however a great many complaints about the notes in the NAB. The ones I’ve read aren’t terrible, though I can attest to some of the dodgy feel of some of the comments. I remember having a rather iffy feel about what they were writing in the intro to the pentituch for instance.

Do a google search for a Haydock Douay bible online (there are some, with his notes) and compare to the NAB, or even Bishop Chanllor’s comments (however sparce, go here for this version

Anyway, I wouldn’t steer someone completely clear of the NAB. Like I said, I have several for usage durring services since this is the standard bible in usage across the US at least. But for study purposes, I use the Douay.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit