Which Bible translation is considered the most scholarly?

[usregimechange]

You know the one that smart liberals use.

Thanks,

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. That would be the Jerusalem Bible

it was translated by a team of scholars from multiple faiths, who spoke both Aramaic\ Hebrew and Greek

(on a side note, seems the cold is making it even harder to spell... LOL)

[GrpCaptMandrake]

43. I concur n/t

[madeline_con]

2. Read as much as you can....

and don't rely on any one source. That would be my advice.

[stonecoldsober]

3. Monty Python had a good one

[BlackVelvet04]

4. I've read that the New American Standard

is the most accurate from the original Hebrew and Aramaic.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

5. King James Is Good.

But really almost any standard one is good enough to gain the wisdom from that one is seeking.

I've always felt that when it comes right down to it, no matter how religious someone is, no matter what religion, no matter how atheist, no matter how dismissive altogether that someone is, there is still a TON of truly and purely wise things that can be learned from reading the bible, if done so with an open mind. So if read for that purpose, just about any standard version would do. I recommend the book of Proverbs. So much wisdom in there.

[Devlzown]

10. The KJV is good for English lovers.

It isn't the clearest of translations, but some passages (like Psalm 23) just sound so much better in that version.

[Kagemusha]

11. People spend enough time ignoring the parts that are plain

I don't think that it's the less obvious, more subjective translation portions that most poeple need scholarly help to abide by.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

13. I'll Be Damned If I Understand What The Heck You Were Trying To Say Or How It Applied To My Post.

Sincerely, I mean that. I didn't know what the heck you meant LOL

[Kagemusha]

44. Sigh. Sorry.

I mean that people spend enough time arguing about this translation or that translation - people ignore the parts of the Bible that they ALL GET RIGHT because they're things like, blessed are the poor.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

47. Ahhhhhh Yes. Exactly What I Was Trying To Say.

Inherent in the bible are passages of pure truth and wisdom that hold their weight in any standard version.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

14. but which one?

KJ -1? which had no hebrew scholars and reportedly had 40,000 errors in ye olde testament?
or
KJ-2? which had at least as many errors in the gnu testament from Attic Greek, and arameic/
or
KJ- 2- Americanized? where they changed the language to meet the downward abilities of Americans?

or Aelfric's? or King henry's or Tyndale's? all different, all contradictory.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

30. Self-Delete.

[Dorian Gray]

50. I like...

King James Version because it is very poetic, but I don't think the translation is known to be the best out there.

I have three Bibles at home. One is American Standard, one is a Jerusalem, and one is the King James translation. I only have three because two were given as gifts. The American Standard Bible is my go to Bible when I am in the mood to read scriptures.

[Az]

6. The Skeptic/Atheist community uses the SkepticsAnnotatedBible

www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

It is based on the KJV. But the informed liberal knows that all translations carry the bias of those doing the translation. Add to this the fact that we simply do not have the original text of the bible. Toss into the soup the fact that the whole thing was stiched together by a group pushing their own agenda out of a larger collection of texts most of which have been subsequently destroyed.

[Trajan]

12. Yep .... I call it the SAB Version ....

Not really ..... but some might call it the SOB version ....

It is a bit cutting and 'irreverent', you might say .... But debating Atheists will find it's footnotes and search functions useful in arguments .... I certainly have ....

NIKA ! .... Vanquish ! ...

[libnnc]

7. Oxford Annotated was our required

version in our religion courses at Brevard College

edited for clarity

[Liberal Lassie]

15. FORGET about school, Even Paul Simon said,

"When i think back on all the crap i learned in high school it's a wonder I can think at all."
Jersalem bible terrific but really long and stuffy, BUT GOOD! KJV is the only version i have ever
been able to receive a blesssing out of and has been my standard for half a century. Revised standard version is full of misinterpretation and misrepresentation. Sorry folks, it's true. Any Bible thaqt removes the true meaning of "grace" and places "kindness" in it's stead is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Grace is the whole point of Christ coming to become our savior. Without grace we are all
just toast. PERIOD. kINDNESS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GRACE. Do you think parole boards let you out of a cell by kindness? Hell no. God himself removed us from incredibly strict Jewish law and we are now all under God's G R A C E!!! That is all encompassing including no more animal sacrifice, forgiveness of sin for the asking and OH, SO MANY OTHER THINGS. BUT NOT KINDNESS.

[libnnc]

16. um, okay....

The OP asked about "scholarly" translations. Oxford is considered as such. For those who want to "study" not necessarily seek some kind of spiritual "experience".



But thanks for sharing...

[Liberal Lassie]

18. Your welcome and thanks for your underwhelming understanding

of what i was trying to say. Some versions are useless to scholars or anyone else. Are you reading it to learn the truth or just to envoke a good "scholarly" debate? I assumed the question was asked to find out the best way to get to know the Way, the Truth and the Light. Go with the KJV if you want to really under stand the full picture of the faith. HONESTLY, JUST TRYING TO HELP!!!

[libnnc]

20. Well then if you're trying to help the OP, it is usually

customary to respond to THEM. Not me.

and welcome to DU...

I think.

[annabanana]

22. "learn the truth"?

. . . . ok
I think the OP just wants to study the book.

[usregimechange]

23. Actually no, I just wanted to know if there was a version used by

most Historians. i.e. is their consensus among scholars?

[libnnc]

26. I attended a small United Methodist college

our religion and theology professors told us that Oxford was the most scholarly. In fact, we were told that if we showed up to class with any other version, we'd flunk the course.


for what it's worth...

[usregimechange]

27. Is it available on-line?

Thanks

[libnnc]

32. not sure about that...I've never tried to search for it

on line. I still have my old copy. It has some great map too.

edit to add, I've done a quick search via google and I haven't found a free online version. But if you searched Amazon you could probably pick up a used one for less than $30. It is a pretty good investment I think considering all the maps, study guides, footnotes and end notes that it comes with.

[Zhade]

34. There's very little "truth" in the bible.

Or do you think rabbits have cloven hooves and chew cud?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

39. Actually There Is A TON Of Truth In The Bible. In Fact, Purer Truth Than You Can Find Almost

anywhere.

Sure, there are so many absurdities in the bible and anecdotal stories that are contradictory or impossible, but overall when looking deeper and reading objectively, the bible is filled with some of the purest inarguable wisdom you can get from any book, period.

Pure wisdom is pure truth, no matter its source. And if one is able to put their religious tendencies aside and learn that wisdom just for what it is, pure truth, then much can be gained.

So much in the bible has nothing technically to do with religion at all, and is instead just simply inarguable pure wisdom that anyone could use for benefit.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

40. I Prefer That Version Myself.

[Dorian Gray]

51. Hey...

my brother went to Brevard College! Cool! (Although he didn't finish there!)

I don't think he took religion, though!

[karlrschneider]

8. This one: Check it out

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

[jgraz]

9. You might also want to check out the Jefferson Bible

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

Interesting read...kind of a Reader's Digest version without all the mumbo-jumbo.

[fairfaxvadem]

17. Well, I've only read the new Catholic version...

but what I find fascinating is all the footnoting. Not the "cross-referencing" to the OT from the NT to justify the birth of Christ was foretold and all that, but there are a lot of historical footnotes in terms of where scholars thing such and such took place, etc. I spend more time reading the annotations than I do the text, sometimes. Very informative.

What strikes me in the footnoting of the OT, is how much took place where we are now causing so much destruction. The artifacts in Iraq that are being destroyed is heartbraking. Abraham, if I recall, was from the land of Ur, a major archeaological site in Iraq that, from what I've read, has not been well-protected.

It's a disgrace, regardless of what interpretation you prefer.

[Liberal Lassie]

24. AGREED, but please remember the Iraqi people did the

looting and not the US. I have been a student of the Bible for decades and i have read about 20 different versions. The Catholic bible has 7 chapters not found in the other versions and I consider them to be more or less beautiful poetic writings and more or less correct. The annotations are interesting as well. God did not need to JUSTIFY the birth of Christ. The God I have come to know does nothing whatsoever except things that will help us to find him in deeper and deeper ways. His son was a tremendous stroke of genius and so was the crucifixation. Why not trying to leave the annotations for awhile and read the book of John. Try it, you'll like it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

37. Not all the looting was done by Iraqis

U.S. troops did major damage to archeological sites such as the ruins of Babylon because they were too ignorant to understand what they were and just thought they were an old pile of rocks.

[liberal N proud]

19. Depends on what sect you are in...

Each religion has their favorites and all others are just toilet paper.

[Az]

21. Purpose is important

If you are debating with a believer then you really have to site their particular source material. If you are researching for your own interest then its a bit more open.

[usregimechange]

25. Actually, I want to teach my son the version that is considered to

be the most historically accurate. We will be watching the PBS special on Jesus Sunday. i.e. I want my son to be given as objective information as their is available so as to not spoon feed him what to believe.

:pals:

[Az]

28. May I recommend a book

Misquoting Jesus. Its a book about a person's journey and study in trying to discover what Jesus really did and said.

Also any of the books the spun out of the Jesus Seminar are valuable as well for approaching the bible in an objective fashion.

[Liberal Lassie]

29. Good for you.

God taught by example and with the use of parables. If your child is old enough to understand
what a parable is and how to glean truth from it them you are absolutely correct. Good luck to
your son.

[burrowowl]

31. Go to a Catholic bookstore

Their is a big bible called the Jerome, probably around a $100, and from the Biblical school in Jeruselem. Is very interesting with the commentaries etc. It is big and thick.
On edit: used in many protestant theology schools as well.

[walldude]

33. Your question pretty much sums up my entire problem with

the "Bible". Which one? People claim this book carries the word of God yet there are many versions, translations and interpretations. All of a book written thousands of years ago. I think I'll just stick with my instincts and try to live my life without hurting anyone, I sure don't need a book to teach me that.

[BrotherBuzz]

35. Good on you and the Golden Rule

Seems to be a common theme among all religions, yet you figured it out independently.

Christianity: All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.
Matthew 7:1

Confucianism: Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state.
Analects 12:2

Buddhism: Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.
Udana-Varga 5,1

Hinduism: This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you.
Mahabharata 5,1517

Islam: No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.
Sunnah

Judaism: What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.
Talmud, Shabbat 3id

Taoism: Regard your neighbor’s gain as your gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.
Tai Shang Kan Yin P’ien

Zoroastrianism: That nature alone is good which refrains from doing another whatsoever is not good for itself.
Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5

[usregimechange]

38. Where did you get all of those? Thank you, saving.

[usregimechange]

36. I think it doesn't hurt

I use to oppose Christianity because I had many bad experiences with some christians. I try to manage that today and keep an open mind. I am still a skeptic but a good enough one that I can be skeptical of my own skepticism as well.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

41. As a professional translator, I know that there can be several "correct"

translations of a single work. I've been at translators' conventions where three people are given the same passages to translate, and they come up with translations that are all accurate and have the same essential meanings but make different choices of words or emphasis.

If you want annotations (historical notes), the Oxford Bible is the one to get. I'm assuming that's what you want. Otherwise, there are entire books of commentaries of every ideological stripe.

[Malikshah]

48. True-- as a scholar of Islam, the Qur'an issue is both more simple

and complex at the same time.

Muslims tend to believe that the Qur'an should not be translated from its original language-- God chose to reveal his final message in Arabic and Arabic it should stay. Hell, the medieval grammarians based their rules/guidelines on Qur'anic grammar to a large degree for the logical reason that God would not be making grammatical errors in his revelation...

For all its extreme diversity, lack of any central authority, etc. the Muslim world does tend to agree on the definitive Qur'an in Arabic. (Yes, there are disputes between Ibn Mas'ud's recension favored by Shi'ites, etc., but on the whole it's not so complex an issue as with the Bible)

The issue, as has been noted by many of the posts appears to be translations and what is lost and added -- (e.g., the difference between "Grace" and "kindness"-- big-ass difference that should not be ignored)

Sorry for the aside-- but it's all quite fascinating when one begins to compare the history of the manifestation of sacred texts.

[JohnLocke]

42. Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures

http://www.jewishbookcenter.com/ProductImages/biblesandprayerbooks/jps%20tanakh.bmp
Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures by the Jewish Publication Society
----
http://www.amazon.com/Tanakh-Scriptures-Translation-According-Traditional/dp/0827602529
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jewish_Publication_Society_of_America_Version
-----
Regarded throughout the English-speaking world as the standard English translation of the Holy Scriptures, the JPS TANAKH has been acclaimed by scholars, rabbis, lay leaders, Jews, and Christians alike.
The JPS TANAKH is an entirely original translation of the Holy Scriptures into contemporary English, based on the Masoretic (the traditional Hebrew) text. It is the culmination of three decades of collaboration by academic scholars and rabbis, representing the three largest branches of organized Judaism in the United States.
Not since the third century b.c.e., when 72 elders of the tribes of Israel created the Greek translation of Scriptures known as the Septuagint has such a broad-based committee of Jewish scholars produced a major Bible translation.
In executing this monumental task, the translators made use of the entire range of biblical interpretation, ancient and modern, Jewish and non-Jewish. They drew upon the latest findings in linguistics and archaeology, as well as the work of early rabbinic and medieval commentators, grammarians, and philologians. The resulting text is a triumph of literary style and biblical scholarship, unsurpassed in accuracy and clarity.
http://www.jewishbookcenter.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=222

[johnnypneumatic]

45. the Brick Testament is the only one I will ever use

http://www.thebricktestament.com/

[Rosemary2205]

46. The big shots use the 4 language bibles

It has the passages in the most original language, plus hebrew, often greek or latin, and english. I believe there is more than one manufacturer of these bibles.

[Bolo Boffin]

49. Check out the New Revised Standard - Harper Collins Study Edition

Of course, nothing beats the original texts, LOL, but the NRSV is probably your best bet. The Harper-Collins Study Edition has some of the best notes on scholarly questions about text, etc. that I've ever seen.

I wouldn't knock the New Jerusalem or the Tanakh either.

For a simple, literal-as-possible, literal-to-the-point-of-wooden, translation, find a copy of the American Standard Version.

If you want a good, readable text, the New International Version can't be beat.

If you find a copy of the New King James Version, stare at it a while. It's a modern translation of the same text used for the King James Version, without any advances in textual knowledge considered at all. We have learned quite a lot in 400 years, but where there's a market, there's a Bible.

[Blue_In_AK]

52. I like the Amplified Bible

which is a close translation from the original Greek and Hebrew and includes different shades of meaning of certain words in parentheticals. Lots of footnotes and cross-references. I have several translations around here, but this one is my favorite.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

53. The Revised English Bible

When I took Old Testament as History from a fabulous linguist at Trinity University (nominally Presby, at least used to be), we used the New English Bible. The religion prof graduated from Princeton and actually knew Amharic, Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, etc.

This was because the scholars at Oxford went back to the original texts and did straight translations into English. This was in the 1970s when they were first getting into computer analysis of textual styles to figure out who wrote what.

Then they worked on The New English Bible some more and came out with the Revised English Bible. Still elegant, but not dumbed down. Also much thinner than the New English Bible.

[mcctatas]

54. Harper Collins Study bible...

KJV is not considered to be a good translation by most scholars...(at least according to my religion prof)