Bible Translations

[baby tuckoo]

Wycliffe and Tyndale would be so disappointed ... and what does that make of the 1611 KJV edition (scroll down in link), whose spelling, punctuation, and vocabulary have been variously moderized since?

And poor St. Jerome. How about Jerome? His Vulgate version of the entire canon from the 4th century (after Nicea) was the first authoritative, single language version. Most versions before modern times (including the King James) were based on his translations.

Yes, the KJB was produced by Anglican/Episcopal priests, but the high church in England hadn't evolved away from Catholicism much in 1611. There isn't much in the KJB that an old world catholic would object to, and there is that lovely sense of the English language.

My "Bible as Literature" class in college used the Jerusalem Bible (with JRR Tolkein listed as an editor; I wonder what he really contributed) as its text.

Thank you Kushana for your input to this thread, which I only just read because of my involvement on the epistimology screed also on this forum. I don't normally come here, for I'm a silly person both in heart and head.

[Kushana]

How about Jerome? His Vulgate version of the entire canon from the 4th century (after Nicea) was the first authoritative, single language version.

The ancient and venerable Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Syriac, Ethiopic, and Greek Orthodox Churches would politely beg to differ -- they each have complete translation of the Bible in their own languages that they regard and true and authoritative. It's not their faults the Europeans read little but Latin and its descendants!

You may enjoy reading Bart Ehrman's _Misquoting Jesus_, which has the least sleep-inducing account of the sources of the KJV I've read in a while. (Nothing against the King James, but how it came to be has been described in an eyelid-drooping way too many times.)

Please come here more often! Glad to have you here.

Yours,
Kushana

[WampusCat]

I second Kushana's recommendation of "Misquoting Jesus." It's interesting and quite readable.

[Trazúviel]

I was raised "King James Only", but since I began doing deeper studies all I have to say is "Oi!"

I still refer back to KJV, but my favorite is NIV. It's easier to understand and more literally translated than others I've read with very little paraphrasing (imho). I use Power Bible on my computer that has a bunch of translations to compare which really helps when I come to a verse or paragraph that I don't quite understand or wonder if that's how it really translates from the original Greek or Hebrew. It also has an interlinear choice that will pull up the original text, as well as Strong's and Young's concordances.

Some may feel that's a bit of overkill, but it works wonderfully for me in my studies.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I use Power Bible on my computer that has a bunch of translations to compare which really helps when I come to a verse or paragraph that I don't quite understand or wonder if that's how it really translates from the original Greek or Hebrew. It also has an interlinear choice that will pull up the original text, as well as Strong's and Young's concordances.

Some may feel that's a bit of overkill, but it works wonderfully for me in my studies.

Trazzie, I think that is wonderful. The more that you can understand what was said in the original language that the texts were written in, the better you are going to understand what is really said. I am not a bible scholar myself (for from it) but I do know that many translations fall very short of truly reflecting what was really said, and in fact in many cases may even be misleading.

[Trazúviel]

The more that you can understand what was said in the original language that the texts were written in, the better you are going to understand what is really said.

Oh yes! That's why I don't like paraphrased bibles, they seem very misleading to me. Ideally, the best thing is to just learn Greek and Hebrew...but I doubt that will happen for me any time soon.

Another help with studying is looking at the context. I've heard many verses over the years taken out of context, which can change the whole meaning of the verse. It's also interesting if you try to put yourself in the times that the text was written. Especially in the Old Testament.

[Kushana]

I remember reading somewhere ... in some Church worthy ... that the Bible was sometimes read as a VR experience. As a form of meditation on Scripture the reader would imagine every detail of the setting as vividly as possible, then read the passage.

(If anyone's heard of this please help my flagging memory...)

-Kushana

[WampusCat]

I don't recall reading that advice but it's how I've often read Scripture for many years. I also will reenact the scene in my mind, taking on the identity of each person and seeing it through his or her eyes.

Come to think of it (the ol' brain kicks in eventually), I think that is called the Ignatian Method of prayer. So St. Ignatius might be the Church worthy.

[MithLuin]

WampusKitty is correct; it was how St. Ignatius taught the Jesuits to read the Bible.

The first step was to do all your research, look up the Greek roots and all of that. And once you knew all there was to know intellectually about a passage (well, as much as you could learn in one day, anyway), you were then to read over the passage slowly, visualizing all the details and putting yourself into it. That was to keep them from becoming scholastics - too many people of his time knew their theology, but had deplorable prayer lives. He wanted his group to be balanced and do both .

My "Bible as Literature" class in college used the Jerusalem Bible (with JRR Tolkein listed as an editor; I wonder what he really contributed) as its text.

He contributed to the translation of the Book of Job, but it was not his translation alone by any means. Carpenter mentions this in the Biography, I think.

[solicitr]

My "Bible as Literature" class in college used the Jerusalem Bible (with JRR Tolkein listed as an editor; I wonder what he really contributed) as its text.

He contributed to the translation of the Book of Job, but it was not his translation alone by any means. Carpenter mentions this in the Biography, I think.

Jonah, not Job.

[solicitr]

Most versions before modern times (including the King James) were based on [Jerome's] translations.

Yes, the KJB was produced by Anglican/Episcopal priests, but the high church in England hadn't evolved away from Catholicism much in 1611.

Oh, no. No no no no no. The AV was most emphatically translated from the Greek Textus Receptus for the New Testament, and the Hebrew Massoretics for the Old (Apocrypha I believe straight from the Septuagint).

I have read that the team did in fact cross-check with the Vulgate and a copy of the very Vulgate-based Douai-Rheims- even though possession of that version was a capital offense! Maybe they had a license... But then they also cross-checked or echoed Coverdale, Tyndale, and Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer, and there are still occasional traces of Wycliffe. Perhaps this is why the AV was rather old-fashioned even when it was new- compare it to later Shakespeare, or Ben Jonson.

It's really, really misleading to say that the C of E "hadn't evolved much" from Rome. The vicissitudes of Anglican doctrine between 1533 and 1611 are worth several books in themselves. In fact they have been.

[Crucifer]

I love KJB because of the language, but the lack of Apocrypha annoys me, so I also have Oxford NRSV.

It's really, really misleading to say that the C of E "hadn't evolved much" from Rome. The vicissitudes of Anglican doctrine between 1533 and 1611 are worth several books in themselves. In fact they have been.

It all depends on how high you are. I, for example, consider myself 'high' church Anglican, which means that we use thees thous etc., service is called mass and I am pro-incense. The lower you go, the less Catholic it becomes, so the low church would hate incense in church and abhorr the use of old language.

[WampusCat]

One of the things I like about the Episcopal Church, the U.S. branch of Anglicanism, is that it embraces both high and low. Every parish I have been in has used, at various times of the church year, Rite I (the thees and thous, formal language liturgy) and Rite II (more modern language). I love both liturgies. And incense.

High church has more of a sense of mystery to me. Low church connects more with the rest of my life. Both help me feel closer to God, in different ways.

And I feel the same way about the differing translations of Scripture. They each have their own flavor. The use of language opens different windows in my mind and heart.

[solicitr]

I love KJB because of the language, but the lack of Apocrypha annoys me

The KJV originally included the Apocrypha; it wasn't until rather recently that it was dropped. Poke around in secondhand bookshops. Actually I got mine when Queens' College Chapel, Cambridge, dump-sold *all* their lovely Victorian embossed-leather Bibles and Prayer Books, at the time (early 80's) the C of E got rid of the 1662 edition (tineared fools!).

[Crucifer]

Mine is an Oldish leather bound one. It 'aint got no apocrypha in it.

In the Cathedral where I am Crucifer, we use rite III (Modern language) once a month, and Holy Communion 1 (Old version. Great craic) once a month. The rest of the time it's a sort of combination.

Also, once a month we have compline, which is all sung plainchant and very old language, and only the men sing, to get a monastic feel. If we could have incense there, we most certainly would. Unfortunately, we're not quite that high...

[solicitr]

When I'm feeling really ultratraditionalist, we have an officially-authorized Latin-mass parish here. (This is distinct from the schismatic Lefebrist kooks like Mel Gibson).

[WampusCat]

Plainchant compline?

[anthriel]

Gesundheit.

[WampusCat]

I love all plainchant, especially in Latin. I often chant the psalm in our services (in English). And compline is a lovely, lovely service. When I first was introduced to it, the retreat leader said it was like being tucked into bed.

[solicitr]

Mmmm, plainchant. When I was at Cambridge I attended Evensong at King's Chapel every night I was still in the neighbourhood- the sound of possibly the world's finest SATB male choir echoing around that incredible fan vaulting......

I wanna go back!!!!