What is Your Favorite English Version of the Bible?

[Mary Kissel]

I voted for 'other' as well... I like the ONT Bible that Justin and Deacon Nikolai mentioned too

Mary

[user_345]

I agree, ONT is the way to go.

[Padraig]

Anyone have the Third Millenium Bible?

What do you think of it?

I have. IMO there is no entirely satisfactory version of the scriptures in English. In general it's best to stay away from most of the popular and more recent versions, because of both the theological bias of the translators and their assumptions about texts. With the caveat that none are really satisfactory, the best complete (or nearly complete) versions I know of in English are:

1. The Douay-Rheims Version
2. The King James Version
3. The New Authorized Version (Third Millenium Bible)

For the Old Testament, HTM's Psalter According to the Seventy is good. Brenton's and Thomson's translations of the Septuagint are pretty good, though not entirely without problems -- and I don't know whether Thomson's is even in print.

I also enjoy reading the New American Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible, but would not wholeheartedly recommend them -- especially the latter. The Orthodox New Testament seems to be a generally good version, but I don't have a copy and can't comment on it with any kind of certainty. (I've just looked it over in the bookstore.)

Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville used to sell the old American Bible Society edition of the KJV with Apocrypha, but I doubt they have any more copies. It has been out of print for many years. The Third Millenium Bible is the best substitute, and IMO is actually superior to the KJV. It's a very light revision of the KJV; basically the editors didn't make any changes they felt they could avoid. Obsolete and archaic words have been updated where they are no longer comprehensible to most readers, but the old verb forms and the second person singular are retained. (Thou goest, he goeth.)

As a revision of the KJV, I find it far superior to the NKJV and almost infinitely superior to the ASV and RSV.

In Isaiah 7:14 the RSV translates the Hebrew word almah as "young woman" rather than "virgin." Here it is:

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold a young woman will conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

That seems to me to weaken the power and specificity of Isaiah's prophecy of the Virgin Birth of our Lord.

Many fundamentalist Protestants object to the RSV for just this reason; my mother remembers that when it first came out, my grandfather denounced the RSV as having done away with the Virgin Birth.

The usual explanation is that the RSV is based on the Hebrew, and that the usual translation of the Hebrew almah is young woman. But almah can also be translated virgin, and the Christian tradition is to use the latter translation. The editors of the RSV consciously adopted a pseudo-Jewish point of view, disdaining to create a Christian version of the Bible. While you can make an argument for that, it limits the version's usefulness to traditional Christians.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9 it translates the Greek word pornos (fornicators, whoremongers) as "the immoral," and the Greek words malakos (effeminate, catamites) and arsenokoites (homosexuals) as "sexual perverts."

Here is that verse:

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts . . ."

I think it's inaccurate to translate arsenokoites as "homosexuals." "Homosexuality" usually refers to orientation rather than actions, and I don't believe the concept of homosexual orientation existed in the first century. The old translation "liers with mankind", while more graphic, is also more accurate.

If I were to hazard a guess, I'd guess that in the minds of the editors, immorality was primarily a matter of sexual sins, and "sexual perverts" was pretty much equivalent to "catamites and liers with mankind." Whatever else that may reveal about the editors, it's an example of how free they are with the text. IMO, far too free.

IMO it's best to hew pretty close to the original text. For instance, I don't have any objection to gender-neutral translations in theory, but I strongly object to any substantive changes in the text, including changes in number. (For example, it may be okay to substitute "righteous one" or "righteous person" for "righteous man," providing the original word is not specifically male. But where the original reads "blessed is he," I don't think it's acceptable to say "blessed are they.")

Not saying mine is the only possible view for an Orthodox Christian, just explaining my bias.

Patrick

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

In Isaiah 7:14 the RSV translates the Hebrew word almah as "young woman" rather than "virgin." Here it is:

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold a young woman will conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

If I am not mistaken this is the exact mistake St. Simeon of the Seventy was about to make before the Angel Gabriel stopped him.

[Seraphim Reeves]

Lucian,

I'm surprised anybody else here possesses, let alone actually reads from the Douay-Rheims translation. While I find most of the renderings of the King James Version (which is what I normally read from) easier on the ears, in some key areas in terms of accuracy (particularly in the Old Testament) I would agree the Douay Old Testament is superior. As you rightly point out, it is based on the Latin Vulgate, the translation of the great Latin Father St.Jerome.

This translation is probably about as hard to get these days as an English Septuagint, or the KJV with the "apocrphya"/deuterocanonical books (though I think Oxford university press publishes the latter - a couple of years ago I inquired about ordering one at a local Bible/gift shop.) For years TAN Books (traddie Roman Catholic book publisher) were the only ones publishing it; now I think Angelus Press (the publishing arm of the "Lefebvrist" SSPX) also publishes it.

A rare find, if you're willing to troll through used book shops, is the short lived "Douay-Confraternity" edition. Basically, this was the last pre-Vatican II attempt by the Roman Catholics at putting out an English language Bible. The Old Testament is the same as the regular Douay versions, but the New Testament is a revision of the Rheims-Challoner text; basically the Rheims NT in modern English. I actually have two of these in my possession, one a rather beaten up volume printed in 1961, the other a big "family Bible" style one also printed sometime in the 1960's (it looks like whoever owned it never read it - it's "like new", though getting close to 40 years old.)

Unfortunately, all of the English versions put out by the RC's after Vatican Council II, while more complete than other English translations in terms of the books included in the Old Testament, are heavily marred by the effects of modernistic Biblical scholarship, and to varying degrees even "gender sensitivity" - I couldn't recommend them to anyone.

Seraphim

[Mor Ephrem]

I own a DR that I bought several years ago, and only recently heard that they were not available anymore. The bookbuyer at the RC bookstore I used to work at told me that no one has them available, but later this year (I think he said the fall), they will be back in print.

[Padraig]

I'm surprised anybody else here possesses, let alone actually reads from the Douay-Rheims translation. ...

This translation is probably about as hard to get these days as an English Septuagint, or the KJV with the "apocrphya"/deuterocanonical books (though I think Oxford university press publishes the latter - a couple of years ago I inquired about ordering one at a local Bible/gift shop.) For years TAN Books (traddie Roman Catholic book publisher) were the only ones publishing it; now I think Angelus Press (the publishing arm of the "Lefebvrist" SSPX) also publishes it.

I didn't realize they were that hard to find, but even so I recommend that people at least try own a copy, even if it's not the version they use every day. I got mine about 20 years ago, and even then they were kind of rare, but they weren't too hard to find.

I don't really think the Vulgate is on the same level as the Septuagint, but we're talking about the relative virtues of English versions, right?

Patrick