Good translations of Apocrypha?

[RamistThomist]

What are some good translations of the Apocrypha? All I have is the NRSV in the Oxford Study Bible. It's better than nothing, I suppose, but the NRSV rivals the Message in terms of non-elegance.

 

[Parmenas]

The Authorized Version.

 

[ZackF]

You may take your pick from Catholic translations. The DRV will have a KJV feel and smell to it. The RSV-CE won't have the inclusive language in it. There is also NAB 1970-1987 editions that won't have the inclusive language of the 1991 and later editions. The Jerusalem Bible is an English translation of a French translation of the Vulgate used before NAB.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hi Jacob, you can see it online here, or in hardcopy here: https://www.amazon.com/Apocrypha-King-James-Version/dp/0521506743

 

[RamistThomist]

Thanks, regardless of one's approach to translation, we can all agree that the NRSV is a sin against the English languag.

 

[greenbaggins]

I haven't read the apocryphal portion yet, but the Revised English Bible, while influenced by liberalism to a certain extent (not as much as one might expect: it goes with the traditional understanding of Genesis 1:1, for instance, but goes with liberalism on Isaiah 7:14 and Romans 9:5) is spectacular English, and I would imagine quite a good translation of the Apocrypha. I never liked the NRSV, but I am enjoying the REB, especially the quality of the English.

 

[Jake]

While sometimes accuracy leaves something to be desired, I agree with Mr. Keister. The NEB/REB is very well done literately and is a pleasure to read. I think the standard editions come with the Apocrypha. I really enjoy reading the NEB and I hear the REB is actually more conservative in some places. You can also use the classic Reformation Bibles like the KJV and the Geneva. My 1611 edition of the KJV includes the Apocrypha.

 

[JimmyH]

Available in hardcover or leather The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible is ;
Edited by David Norton, this important scholarly edition presents a revised KJV text based on a thorough evaluation of textual variants in current renderings as well as the extant notes of the 1611 Translators. The text itself is presented in paragraph form, with marginal notes, and adopts modern conventions of spelling and punctuation to make it easy to read and use. The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible was originally published in 2005 in a large format and, like the original King James Bible and successive editions until the nineteenth century, included the Apocrypha. As it has become known in the marketplace, a demand has become apparent for this Bible in a smaller, more manageable format. Its is therefore now being issued in Personal Size editions, either with or without the Apocrypha. This particular Bible includes the Apocrypha. It is printed on Bible paper, has gold page-edges and two ribbon markers, and is bound in black calfskin leather.

 

[ZackF]

Remember what is called Apocrypha isn't merely what the RCC considers deuterocannonical. The Russian Orthodox have the largest collection of books in their bible. I wanted to be sure and qualify my recommendation above.

 

[Pilgrim]

There is the old RSV as well. My guess is that it is at least more elegant than the NRSV and maybe less politically correct. You can find it in the New Oxford Annotated Bible, Expanded Edition (1977.) The RSV is also available online if you would like to compare it to the NRSV and others.

Then there is the ESV published by Oxford which is apparently out of print, although a Lutheran Edition with notes appears to be in print. I don't think it was overseen by the same team (Packer, et al) that oversaw the OT and NT but was published by OUP. As with the rest of the ESV, it is a revision of the last edition of the RSV.

 

[RamistThomist]

My guess is that it is at least more elegant than the NRSV and maybe less politically correct.

It is more elegant. The NRSV is ugly as sin.

 

[Von]

the NRSV rivals the Message in terms of non-elegance.

we can all agree that the NRSV is a sin against the English languag.

The NRSV is ugly as sin.

I take it you feel quite strong about this...

 

[RamistThomist]

I take it you feel quite strong about this...

I do.

 

[greenbaggins]

I take it you feel quite strong about this...

What tipped you off? Jacob has been striving very hard to be subtle about all this. Von, you might need to ask yourself whether your interpretation of Jacob's words might not be a bit of a stretch...

 

[JimmyH]

Just a point of interest (to me if to no one else) David Dewey in his 'A User's Guide To Bible Translations', referring to the 2001 edition, says The ESV is best described as a light revision of the RSV. Apart from the removal of the archaic "thee/thou" terminology, which the RSV retained in relation to God, and a policy of moderate, if formulaic, inclusive language (following the Colorado Springs guidelines), no more than 3-4 percent of the RSV text has been updated.

 

[RamistThomist]

Just a point of interest (to me if to no one else) David Dewey in his 'A User's Guide To Bible Translations', referring to the 2001 edition, says The ESV is best described as a light revision of the RSV. Apart from the removal of the archaic "thee/thou" terminology, which the RSV retained in relation to God, and a policy of moderate, if formulaic, inclusive language (following the Colorado Springs guidelines), no more than 3-4 percent of the RSV text has been updated.

Aside from Isaiah 7:14, the RSV is mostly superior to the ESV. The RSV on the Psalms is rivaled only by the KJV.

 

[RamistThomist]

What tipped you off? Jacob has been striving very hard to be subtle about all this. Von, you might need to ask yourself whether your interpretation of Jacob's words might not be a bit of a stretch...

Believe it or not, my posted review about the New Interpreter's Study Bible was very toned down.

 

[beloved7]

Crossway/ ESV published one if i remember correctly.

 

[RamistThomist]

Crossway/ ESV published one if i remember correctly.

That's right. I totally forgot about that.